Christian Bakers Found Guilty of Discrimination

Call it American Outrage: 2015. The concept of private-sector discrimination has never set quite right with me in the first place, but this new idea that gay rights trump religious ones is completely beyond the pale. In Oregon this week, a judge ruled that Sweet Cakes by Melissa was guilty of discrimination when they refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. Even though the bakery served homosexual customers without prejudice, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries concluded that this refusal was against the law. Now it will be up to the judge to determine how badly this infraction will cost owners Aaron and Melissa Klein.

“The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools,” said spokesman Charlie Burr in a statement, “but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability, or religion.” He said that Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not qualify as a religious institution.

Discrimination As Judged By Whom?

Putting aside the letter of the law for a moment, there is considerable question whether refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation. If a group of heterosexuals came in to ask Melissa for a cake meant for a We Hate Homos party, would she have to cater to them, too? Well, that very situation arose only a week ago. A pro-LGBT baker in Colorado was slapped with a complaint when she refused to bake a cake with anti-homosexual slurs on the surface. While that case is a long way from being decided, liberals have risked life and limb to be the first to defend the baker’s right to refuse “hate speech.” So let’s stop pretending this is about discrimination. This is about furthering the gay agenda, plain and simple, end of story.

Laws That Thwart the Ideals of Freedom

But what about the law itself? Is it perhaps time to review these discrimination laws under the light of free speech? Why should only those businesses that qualify as “religious organizations” be able to discriminate in their practices? No one wants a hateful, bigoted society, but I think I would rather see businesses with a “Sorry, no Gays” sign out front than to have the government swooping in with the iron fist of force. If the community finds such policies abhorrent, they’ll drive the place out of business soon enough. And the beauty of the free market is such that there will always be someone else willing to take those customers off the hands of the bigot. Discrimination should be illegal for government services, obviously, but I’ve yet to read a compelling argument for these laws in the private sector.

Anna Harmon, who represents the Kleins, said, “Americans should not have to choose between adhering to their faith or closing their business, but that is what this decision means.”

Indeed it does, and it demonstrates what’s wrong with these laws at a very fundamental level. When it comes to the breaking point, someone is going to have their rights infringed upon. As it stands now, it’s just a matter of the law picking which groups are protected and which aren’t. And that can only lead to a slow, sure destruction of freedom.

About Admin

482 comments

  1. I KEEP SAYING IF WE DO NOT DO SOMETHING AND SOON AMERICANS WON’T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TIME WE SPEAK OUT AND RID OURSELVES OF THE TYRANNY GOING ON NOW W/THE MARXIST GOVT WE HAVE. WE MUST NOT LOOSE AMERICA LOOK AT THE WORLD UNDER OVOMITCOMMIEHITLER

  2. As usual these Gay groups and their ilk or should I say ick are shoving their beliefs down our throats or up our you know whats with their tireless efforts to denigrate anyone with religious beliefs.

  3. Let this be a lesson to all that the gay community will take you to court if you refuse to provide services to them. May I suggest that Christian bakers not refuse gays but rather give them the worst most unpalatable baked goods possible. This approach will soon prove effective when no one can eat the cakes they’ve ordered from Christian bakers. Use the lowest quality ingredients, less sugar and more salt in all baked for gay cakes. Don’t refuse them, get even.

    • They would still be sued as all they would have to do is buy another cake and prove the baker did it on purpose.

    • Only one problem with that as I thot the same thing–IT WOULD REFLECT POORLY TO THE BAKERY–never know who at the “gathering” who are straight might want to use the same bakery so it would hurt them.
      But as I said earlier this isn’t about the cake–is it? No–or else they would have gone to another bakery but it’s about FORCING ones ideas on another!!!
      Why doesn’t a gay owned bakery ADVERTISE that they do gay wedding cakes in every big city and leave the rest alone–but then that’s NOT their goal is it?!?

  4. What an excellent idea for a movement. Go and film request denials for anti homosexual cakes and post them on the web and sue the piss out of them. OPERATION QUEER CAKE.

  5. It was the correct verdict. Religious institutions can discriminate but not commercial enterprises. Where would you draw the line ? Planes for Jews ? Planes for Baptists – and so on. It would be absurd.

    • You draw the line on an individuals right to have free speech. If that free speech is in opposition to a religious belief they have it is still their right to refuse. We are on a slippery slope, The gay agenda is to end free speech completely and when that happens you will have a different opinion about this decision because it will affect your everyday life. The SCOTUS has already ruled that corporations are no different than individuals.

      • I did not. If I own Delta Airlines using your logic I could refuse all non catholics.

        • Americans Wake Up

          Your logic has no logic at all.

        • Americans Wake Up

          There is a huge difference in refusing to serve someone based on their race rather than their chosen lifestyle. The gay agenda is to force their lifestyle on everyone even if it violates free speech.

        • Morton212, you are absolutely right and you would lose out on all the profits that you could have for allowing everyone. That is your choice as a business man and your competition who allows everyone will make more money than you. That is the point of a free market. The whole discrimination issue originated, mostly from the South where
          blacks were heavily discriminated against. Black people were treated in every way as second class citizens, if that. A business owner refusing to provide a service for an event that violates their beliefs, is on a completely different playing field. As you have probably heard, who gets to decide if a black business owner should be forced to provide services for a KKK meeting? Or like the article mentioned, an LGBT business person having to provide a service for an anti-LGBT event? What about a white guy refusing service for a KKK meeting, because he does not agree with them? Or a non-LGBT business person refusing service for an anti-LGBT event because they support the LGBT community?

          Use a bit of logic.

          The underlying problem is that the government now thinks it is responsible for our economy, which is suppose to be free from government control, rather the free market is suppose to be being protected by “Our” government. The free market is suppose to support and reinforce the culture, through people making their financial decisions based upon their beliefs. If you do not agree with someone’s beliefs, then you take your business elsewhere, where you will be welcomed. The government, is not the creator of morality, and as our founders said numerous times, our laws should come directly from the word of God (Bible). Not from people who cannot even logically deduce , for themselves, what I presented in my first paragraph.

          • The government IS responsible for enforcing a free and open capitalist market open to all. The problem with your over-intellectualizing is that there are pragmatic modifications to a free market place. The businesses of necessity must share public thruways, and access. Publicly provided resources of all kinds from water and sewer to security and protection via the courts and the police. And so local authorities issue permits – which are not permitted to favor any segment of the public. The only exception is that of a place of religious worship.

          • Cake and flowers are not necessities.

          • We are talking about a general principle otherwise do you want to arbitrate every squeamish moral that a shopkeeper might have toward his customers ?

          • We are talking about a general principle, but you are trying to force Christians to obey your view of the principle, but be free of it yourself. That is called hypocrisy. The problem is that your view is not the principle established by the American Constitution. So no, I do not want to arbitrate every “squeamish” moral that a shopkeeper might have, but you want to control it. They can have whatever belief they want, I will just take my money to someone else. e.g. Because of business practices and announced standings, I do not shop at Target, nor do I buy anything from Starbucks. Those are only a couple of my choices in regards to a free market. If someone said they do not serve black people, I will not give them any of my money. If someone posts outright derogatory statements about anyone, they will not get my money. I do not give money to prostitutes, except as a gift. I do not go to party clubs, strip clubs, casinos, and numerous other places that participate in activities that I believe are destructive to people’s minds, bodies, and souls.

  6. If it were me, I would refuse to comply with any government order to cater to the homosexual agenda. God does not tolerate homosexuality (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Also see Acts 5:29 regarding whether we should obey God’s Law vs. the law as written by other men.

  7. This is so wrong. I always believed that we had the right to live our lives the way we want and that a business also had rights but apparently some fools have decided that we will do as they want…where is our freedom and how do we get it back

  8. My way of thinking is that you provide the neccessary service but don’t offer anything more than just a cake or whatever and in the process don’t be overly friendly so they won’t come back in to your bakery. Get the money and growl a little, after all, it’s still money.

  9. Gays are doing a great job as even the schools are teaching that it is just another life style and there is nothing wrong with it.

  10. Gay people are people also.
    Serve them as you would serve others.

    • Child molesters are people also, serve them as you serve others. Bake that cake for the celebration of sexually loving children. Serial killers are people also, serve them as you serve others. Provide the tools they will use to torture their victims. Just because people think they should be allowed to do something does not mean that we have to be apart of it.

  11. This is discrimination against business in general. A business should
    be able to decide who their customer clientele is regardless of who they
    are. If that business wants to lose revenue from not baking a cake for
    someone, then so be it. This is a loss for freedom. The Homosexuals
    could go to a bakery that would bake the cake for them. Why are there not law suits against the school districts for forcing the “Alternative live styles” which is Homosexuality on our children? I did not want my kids being taught that shoving their penis up another boys butt is normal.

  12. There is an easy solution to this. Add your logo ( Christian) to the cake and within the box that its in. If they have to redo the cake after destroying the logo and moving it to another box or plate then its just too much trouble in the first place.They had to read your logo (message) so its a win..win.

    • Then they would probably not get paid. Would not work.

      • Yes it would because your allowed to have a company logo on your product. You can post a sign up front in order to have a special ordered cake pay in advance. If they didn’t like that they wouldn’t order it in the first place. Mission accomplished!

        • How would you feel if every restaurant and theater in NYC had a sign up refusing to admit Southern Baptists – as did every airplane company ?

          • They have choices..go to a gay backing bakery. Its all part of the gay-mafia agenda. What happened to the right to refuse anyone law? As you complain, our freedoms are disappearing daily. As for your opinion about the theater or restaurants statement, the last time I checked the Christians have been discriminated on the most in today’s society.

          • I guess that’s a great big ‘F’ for fail. I find it funny when this kind of posting is so blatantly homophobic and the posters are unable to separate it logically from any other kind of discrimination.

          • To be so called gay your so unhappy.I read your earlier comments and your just looking for a fight with anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint. Homophobic is a foolish label to discredit anyone who feels differently. There’s no fear here, to create a phobia condition.Discrimination is for someone who had no choices unlike any of these individuals who had others to go to. “F” is for your failure to see and understand truth, and integrity.I’ll keep you in my prayers..

          • Refusing to make a cake for a same sex wedding IS homophobic – since there is no religious waiver permitted for commercial undertakings.

          • Commercial undertakings are a personal undertaking. It is not a business coming out of the primordial ooze and providing a service. It is an individual who is expressing themselves through their work. The person that God has created them to be. A black person saying no to a KKK event is anti-KKK. Just because your term homophobic has become a popular word used to describe the reality that homosexuality is not how God had created it to be, does not make it any less a lie then my point about the KKK.

          • Do you think that every business should have an unconditional right to decline service on moral grounds to anyone it chooses to decline ?

          • Would you go and eat at a restaurant that played Christian sermons as the ambient? If they provided the best food in the area, do you have the right to force them to stop playing it, so you can eat there and not have to listen to what the owners want to have played? There is no absolute to your question, but, yes, normally people should have the right to refuse service to whomever they choose. Otherwise a drunk out of control alcoholic has the right to be served in your establishment and you can be arrested for refusing.

          • Yes I might eat at that restaurant — they can play what they like it does not affect my right to the service. But they should have no right to refuse to serve me because I am an atheist. And no, a drunk is disorderly and can be arrested by the police for disturbing the peace. Otherwise you would not know that he was drunk.

          • You did not answer the question. Do you have the right to infringe upon the owners rights to freely speak, through their music, so you can enjoy yourself there; or do you have the right to take your money elsewhere? Do the owners have to serve you, if you come into a fine dining restaurant, in a leotard? At what point do your personal “rights” supersede the rights of the person who has created the business you are wanting to use?

          • YES!!!!
            U S ARMY VETERAN

          • Really – does that somehow give you judgmental rights ?

          • Understanding reality gives people the right to make judgement calls. I can call sin – sin, because I know the Creator of everything in existence and He has made it very plain what sin is. He has done that in every persons heart, which is why they know that what they are doing is not good. People just tend to ignore God and hope after ignoring Him long enough, they will no longer feel that pressure telling them that what they are doing is wrong.

          • There is no problem with using the word ‘sin’ to describe breaking a religious law. It just has no context in secular law – except occasionally by coincidence.

          • And you made no point. You did not have a response to my question which I asked twice, before Edward Mikan made his statement. But you turn and attack my use of the word sin, when I did not make any correlation between it and American law, other then the constitution protects my rights as an individual in whatever business ventures I take and not be apart of the celebration of something contrary to my religious beliefs.

          • Sin has only a religious context and as such has no relationship with the Constitution.

          • Sin is a religious belief which is protected by the Constitution. History and fact.

          • Says you ! LOL. Religious laws have no standing in our justice system. And for a very logical reason. There can only be one law, while we have many different faiths – often with very different ideas about what a sin is.

          • The Constitution and all of our laws pre-1900 were based off of biblical (religious) laws. Those who served understood that all good law must be able to be defended in context of the Bible. History and Fact. Again I say, learn history and why the people revolted against England and established the words they used in the Constitution. Until you actually take the time to learn about these things you will not know. And as I have pointed out to you numerous times, who determines what is legal and not? If we adopt Sharia law, is it now okay to beat our wives and children and behead anyone who will not convert to our faith? I do not know how many times I might have to show you how your belief structure regarding law and morality in America falls apart, logically. You cannot ave truth that is relative, otherwise anything can be permissible.

          • ‘The Constitution and all of our laws pre-1900 were based off of biblical (religious) laws.’ No Sir. US jurisprudence owes its basis from English Common law, which was based on Roman Law and the Magna Carta – neither of which had any basis in any kind of religious law. And the ten commandmenst are themselves derived from the Golden laws – which were used by the Egyptians for thousands of years BC.

          • As I said learn history. When the Constitution was established, the Bible was used to weigh everything within it. As was every other proposed constitutional law pre-1900. The person presenting the case would come with a Bible to the stand prepared to defend the law based off of what was in the Bible. God spoke to many nations, allowing them to understand right and wrong. Just because the Egyptians were established as a nation before the Israelites, does not mean that the Ten Commandments were written by human hands derived from the “Golden Laws”. That is a failed logical argument.

          • Oh boy – who on earth taught you history ! The bible was used ONLY to make an oath of truth. The ‘truths’ in the bible are majorly contradictory – very conveniently for those who wish to become religious leaders – where you can find some kind of poorly translated chapter to condone any kind of point of view that you like. The Framers, by the way – were more Deists than Christians.. It was a very appealing compromise with intellect and mainstream beliefs, because it accepted the idea of a Supreme Being, but had little time for the gospels.

          • No, that is the case during the 20th Century. Pre-1900 the Bible was used alot in the within the government. The government did not eliminate church from the government, it separated them so that neither were trying to direct control over the other, like what had been prominent in Europe over the past 500-1500 years. Are the people who told you that the Bible was not used in the government the one’s who told you that the framers were mostly Deists? It is an amazing thing history, because it is most of those framers you refer to who were active in raising the funds for getting the Senate to approve the mass production of the Bible to distribute to all the people in the land. It was many of them that approved of the document that established the requirements for a state to join. This document required the use of the Bible in training the children in school. It is amazing how many documents by these framers exemplified the need to for people to be moral, by the Bible’s standards for the government they had established to work properly. Try reading what the framer’s actually wrote. Study history. Not American history as taught in your high school class that really taught you nothing about it.
            Watched the video, common logical faults. Well since God created everything, he created everything that is bad. It is His fault, but I don’t believe in Him. It is a circular reasoning that comes to a conclusion that is illogical. That everything came from nothing. It also asserts that you comprehend what is actually presented in the Bible and I can guarantee that he didn’t.

          • What is funny is that you are somehow trying to connect refusal of service for LGBT events and historical black discrimination. Yet, you want to separate discrimination that Christians experience for refusing to provide a service based off one of the very things protected by our constitution. The same protection that you are trying to use to create a right to receive whatever you want because everyone should bow down to your god of sexual promiscuity. Get over yourself. You have no part in an intelligent conversation on this topic, because it is only about yourself. Get an education, learn why and how our country was created, learn the reality of the men who fought for what this country has. Then maybe you will be able to provide some insight into reality.

          • I am applying US law to the issue – and you are trying to apply religious morality. Your problem is that there is no standing in US law for religious morality without a referenced right in Constitutional or statutory law.

          • You are applying your limited understanding of US law. You are using 20th centruy evolutionary law, not the original law that prospered America for 3 centuries before that.

          • What ‘original law’ did you have in mind. Please cite the statute and clause that you have in mind ..

          • Learn the history of law in America.

  13. NOW THE MUSLUMS AND QUEERS ARE IN POWER No one seems to want to take up arms to take america back from the pervertsand communist but that is what must happen. lock and load

  14. All private businesses should have the right to do business with whom they choose period.

  15. Why is it impossible to read this website on my iPhone? It’s a major loss if readership.

    • Publisher greed. The mobiles cannot deal with all the push advertising.

      • Other sites I can read. It’s this site and very few others that have something written into the code that keep me from enlarging the page to a readable size. I can open the page and see everything here just as anyone else, but cannot enlarge the page to read it comfortably. It’s not the advertising. I see exactly what you see on a normal computer. I just get blocked from enlarging it to a comfortable size by something in the code.

        • Try using a different browser.

          • This is one site out of thousands that give me the problem. Why should I go to the trouble of using a different browser for this site when the site owners can just fix their site and possibly pick up thousands of readers? The problem is not my browser. It’s the person that wrote the code for the webpage.
            Fix it and pick up readers.
            Leave it alone and lose readers and advertising dollars.

          • I dunno Richard, but I think they could not care less. I think they use this site to measure what articles their readers like. I understand that the blog article readership is probably 50 times greater than the number of those who actually post.

          • They count the visitors and the links clicked and more. It matters.

  16. Welcome to the FACIST States of America

  17. The judicial system has lost focus. On the constitution th e y have become blind and dumb.

  18. According to this Judge NO ONE can refuse service to Anyone for any reason without it being against the law. Am beginning to be against gays whe I have never been before as I have friends and relatives but they want it all never mine the feelings of others

  19. I think that the judge should be found guilty of religious persecution and denial
    of religious freedoms. Homosexuality is against religious principles and if we
    do not cause harm to those deviates in our society they should not be allowed to
    attack us for our beliefs either. This is a two way street and currently we are
    the ones being persecuted and force to either comply with the demands of
    corruption or face bankruptcy.

    • May be against YOUR religious principles, but not mine. And I would remind you that we are all free to practice our religions.

      • I know of no religion that promotes nor accepts homosexuality. It
        is a deviate sin and not natural. I know those who are homosexual
        and we have talked about their choice of lifestyle. While we
        disagree I do not cause them harm and will stand with them if they
        are being threatened. But that does not mean that I have to
        accept their choices.

        • All the major religions have sects that accept homosexuality. It cannot become mainstream for rather obvious reasons – if homosexuality were preferential to heterosexuality – then species survival might become an issue.

          • I question your statement, please provide reference so that
            I can verify your statement. I have looked into many
            religions during my life time, Mainly to try and understand
            my fellow humans. All that I have seen acknowledge the
            act and have basically said hate the sin but love the
            sinner. That is except in Islam, they flay, stone, burn
            and otherwise kill the individual if exposed. Other
            religions also did that in the past but have progressed
            beyond that extreme.

          • Morton212 is referring to what a Christian would call a cult. Those who have distorted reality, so they can defy the Creator and promote sin.

          • The Catholics have a sect called Dignity which provides religious support for homosexual Catholics whose parish may not give them support. There is a similar reform branch of Judaism which functions for Jews similarly. Most of the protestant sects deal with it arbitrarily depending on the beliefs of the local clergy.

          • I have hear of these groups that give support to homosexuals outside of the church. They are members of the church who
            provide comfort to those who live in sin. It is not a church
            condoned group though. There are similar support groups
            among the Catholics, Jewish and Protestant groups but
            they are outside the church teachings. That still does
            not condone the SIN itself.

          • I agree that they are not condoned by the church itself. That is more due to the fact the religious organizations are very resistant to change – in addition to negative publicity – which is a very real problem when you see that sexual moral code in the country is a very touchy topic – and filled with bigotry – although I do hasten to add that I am not leveling a charge of homophobia at everyone who finds gay marriage reprehensible.
            Most of the negativity comes from a long held cultural bias – which seems to be much stronger in the USA than in other developed nations.

            Having said that – the larger religious organizations are not only aware of the accommodations that have been made within their particular brands, but even contribute anonymously to these movements. They seem to be particularly concerned about giving any apparent signal to some members of our culture who are not content to make their argument orally, but sometimes feel justified in using violence to show their displeasure.

          • Thru personal observation and like many families today

            there are homosexuals in them. We love our family even

            if we do not agree with their lifestyle choices. Whether

            it be homosexuality, promiscuity, drugs or other acts

            we find disagreeable to us. Our morality has been under
            attack for a very long time especially from the Hollywood
            elitist. They have promoted many things and glorified

            sexual deviates, alternative life styles and other acts
            that were not acceptable. They have mocked religious
            beliefs at ever turn recently. Occasionally the will allow
            a religious movie to be made and shown. I must admit
            some have been factual and quite good with their

            message as we have seen in some TV shows. But there
            are far more that deal with the seedier side of life and

            promote the Drug culture, Homosexuality, Criminal

            actions and each year they seem to becoming more
            bold in their exposure. They are effecting the youth
            of our nation to try these acts. Older people have a

            stronger sense of morals and the children make fun

            of us when we try to educate them or inform them of

            what is determent to their future and lives. As you can

            see in other nations where morals have declined the
            life styles have changed and they have been more

            open to deviant life styles and they to say they are

            “progressive” in their thinking. What has, in reality,
            happened is they have had people of lesser morals
            being elected, much like in America today where
            our elected leaders have become more corrupt and
            self centered in their thinking and they have lost sight
            of what they were elected for in the first place.

      • My religious principles say it is okay to murder, rape, and pillage whatever I like. So I am protected by law to perform my religious obligations to Satan. Seriously, do you have any understanding of the American Constitution and Constitutional law? Again, I will say, “learn your history!”

        • Actually no. You have freedom to believe in what you like, but your religious principles are subjugated to the law of the land.

  20. no more american morals or values left after the monkey came to town

  21. So when will homosexuals be held accountable for forcing Christians to abandon their relationship with their Savior? Since homosexuals are not being forced to attend church, then Christians should not be forced to participate in a special event that goes against Christian beliefs.

    • What has God got to do with fancy wedding cakes ???

      • Participating in a homosexual wedding by making a special, or “fancy” wedding cake for that specific ceremony is abandoning God’s stance on homosexuality. The same would go for a “happy abortion” cake.

        • God doesn’t have a stance on homosexuality other than that he created it. A couple of the prophets, however, are pretty homophobic.

          • God does not create homosexuals, and then destroy them up as He did in Sodom. He would never be that cruel. Romans 1:18-31. II Timothy 3. II Timothy 4. God doesn’t play jokes on people.

          • God creates EVERYTHING. Even bacteria that will eat the flesh of new born babies, and murderous ISIL terrorists.

          • God did not create sin or a fallen world. His creation was perfect until we humans blew it. Your argument doesn’t stand.

          • Nonsense. God is omnipotent. He even created Satan.

          • God’s omnipotence has nothing to do with the fact that we live in a sinful and fallen world. Just because he has power doesn’t mean we are His puppets. He allows us to choose, and that’s His omnipotent choice.

          • Maybe, but he also created sin. I thinks its a game to see who is the easiest to tempt. God and his angelic court. They must be splitting their sides when they read some of these postings.

          • No, God did not create sin. He was prepared for it, but He didn’t create it. God does not tempt us, as temptation comes from satan’s side of aisle. James 1:13

          • Satan was a fallen angel – and angels were also God’s creations. Satan’s defect was also by design.

          • God created the angels. Satan’s defection was satan’s design-not God’s. Satan did it all by himself, and got 1/3 of the angels to go along with him. Ironically, he was jealous of mankind.

          • You are trying to have it both ways. Satan was given defects. That was God’s design. Our God is a very cruel God.

          • Free will is not a defect. Satan, as do all angels and humans, have free will. God designed free will because he wanted to love and be loved-not to create hostages. If God were cruel, He would not have sent His Son to die for us.

          • Free will is a cruel joke. You become very entertaining when the immortals watch you struggle with the emotions you were also given.

          • Didn’t watch all of the video. God didn’t create cancer. All disease and death are of satan-not God. Again, we live in a fallen world. Perfection isn’t realized until we live in eternity with God. God’s Word makes this clear.

          • Watch the video. It will not hurt you.

          • Not afraid. Busy. Have heard this kind of stuff all my life. People claiming that we are God’s puppets, and then complain because we’re not. God’s fine with people being angry with Him-He’s tough and can take it. Staying there only hurts us-not God.

          • It sounds as if you are not secure with your own faith. Unable to respond to someone with different views only makes you look unsure.

          • It doesn’t sound like that at all. You seem to think that this video is the only one out there. I did watch a bit of it, but some angry man who is mad at God, and also pretends He doesn’t exist is an old record. Not watching more of that nonsense is about spending time more productively. Have studied the naysayers many times over.

          • Frankly, I don’t believe – in magic -either.

          • Neither do I.

          • Now you have me quite confused. Everything you believe in is magical.

          • No. Magic is a deception-a ruse. There’s nothing fake about God.

          • It is a product of your imagination. It cannot be proven but has to be an act of faith or belief. That has the same qualities as magic.

          • No. Too much proof if you study the bible and all that proves to be true. However, because we can’t actually see or hear Him in the flesh, faith is very much a part of the relationship. It’s not magic, but it is pretty special. I have to make dinner now. Must stop.

          • Morton, when have you ever read the Bible? Studied it? Checked it out to see if it true or a lie? You chose to believe this God hater because you love sin. Believing in God’s word means a change of life style, thoughts, and action. You have shown you are not willing to change and rationalize your sick deeds. Satan has and owns you. All us bloggers see it but you never will. You are much to lazy to read and study the Bible and prefer to believe some moron because it feeds your sick behavior. You arguments show where you stand. You are trying to justify your sinful ways and doing an extremely poor job of it. Please, don’t show your ignorance. Check out the Bible yourself. Make up your OWN mind.

          • Ye, extensively. I was taught scripture for five years. There are many translations too – giving often quite different meanings to what we take form the commonly used King James version. But you probably know that. Much of the Christian legend about Jesus Christ was borrowed from the ancient Geek God Horus, who was also born of a virgin – a son of God.

          • Exo 15:26 and said, “If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.” Shalom!

          • God gives us all that we need to control our emotions. Love is an emotion, and it’s a pretty good one.

          • Lucifer was created perfect(Ezekiel 28:11-19) and he was corrupted by his beauty(verse 17).
            Your god is cruel. My God is love(1John 4:8) and proved it in while I was yet a sinner, Christ died for me(Romans 5:8). That’s AGAPE love in ACTION.

          • Well ,mabe so, he created YOU

          • I understand ‘God’ as another word for infinity. I don’t think there was a beginning, or will be an end to whatever we think of as the spirit – or the part of you that departs when you die. In other words the energy force that distinguishes something as being alive, or dead. Its a very complicated discussion – but there are some brilliant works on this issue if you are interested.

          • No, he was NOT “given defects. God’s design was for perfection. Your chosen deity is, indeed, a very cruel being, but he’s not Yhwh God, Creator of the universe. Neither can you make Him into cruelty. He would joyfully redeemyou from your master, sin, were you but willing torepent and submit to His ways. Instea, you try to BLAME Him for your unhealthy choices, and make Him out to besomething He never was. Think you’re the ONLY sinner who’s tried to justify himself that way? Not hardly! It’s as old as humanity, and STILL doesn’t work.

          • So it seems that you are afraid of God’s wrath on you, because of a small bakery’s requirement to cook wedding cakes for gay couples.

          • No, it’s not “fear of God’s wrath”, it’s a free choice to do according to His Word, not the world’s and the world’s master’s word. There are no “gays”,only homosexuals, and they can only pair, as they are not anatomically designed to couple!

          • This has to be the most illogical concept of ‘free choice’. If it’s a free choice to do according to His Word, – it is actually no choice at all. Its like saying ‘heads I win , tails you lose’.

          • God created everything according to His character. So yes, like it or not, God gets to say my way or the highway, because His way is according to His character as Creator of all things. If you do not like that, that is your own choice to be mad at Him for being who He is. Once you get over that fact, you might begin to understand why God worked things out as He did.

          • How immature. God set out rules that afford us the best options for a happy, healthy life. Choosing to ignore those rules carry consequences in ill health, and unhappiness. God doesn’t want that for us, but allows us to make them. The consequences are natural outworkings of our choices, not God’s punishment for disobedience. So it is with all choices: choose the path in line with natual (God’s) order and the consequences are beneficial; choose to kick against them, and the consequences are harmful to us.

          • Now thats reasonable. I will defer then to God’s judgment, not one of any mortal. You will not be punished for my choices – that would be coercive and denigrate the concept of choice.

          • No, I won’t, because I chose to follow His instructions, and issue a warning to you. What you now choose is fully on your hands.

          • Warn away but don’t harass me. I would leave it to a God to issue his own warnings without your pathetic help.

          • In today’s world He speaks through His followers, and we who choose to obey Him know that, which makes us accountable, when we choose to disobey.

          • That is the response of a delusional person. It is not legal in the USA to claim to follow the dictate of your God, if it in anyway impedes the rights of other citizens. That is your answer, and the basis of all SCOTUS rulngs against the right for gays to marry.

          • No, I’m not delusional, neither have I impeded any actual right of yours; your wants are not ” rights”; there’s a huge difference, and the ones overstepping and tramping on rights are the tyrannical courts and dictator . Again, SCOTUS has NO basis in the Constitution for ruling anything!

          • I would say that if that’s your argument – you will lose rather decisively.

          • Only in your mind, which seems veering toward delusion.

          • No, actually, that IS the Constitytion. I’m not the one off the rails imagining I’m something God never created me to be;THAT would be you, and so is your projecting and hate all you.

          • I am whatever I imagine I am. As are you. And the SCOTUS does have a designated role in arbitrating – for example – your view of the Constitution, versus mine – where we have a coliision of perceived rights.

          • No, their Constitutional jurisdiction is arbting disputes betweenSTATES, not individuals. And rights are God-given, not “perceived” by individuals.

          • I think that the Red Indians might disagree with you on that one.

          • I doubt that. Most of them believe in a Great Spirit Who created all, and gave them their rights.

          • And then the White man arrived, stole their land and convinced themselves that it was their ‘God Given Right’. Yeah, right.

          • And rhose were as wrong as you are. Neither what they wanted, nor what you want is or ever was a right. Those acted out of material wants, just as your group now is, and both are sin.

          • Please go on. I want to see where you go with this one – remember that we have now agreed that the White man land grab was NOT a God given right – does that not suggest that the Constitution is simply making rules over stolen land and contains nothing even remotely based upon God given rights ?

          • Which of our Founders led or initiated a war against Indians? (French and Indian war was started by the British and French crowns, and both sides recruited Indians ti fight with them, ergo doesn’t qualify.) Your premise is inerror yet again, designed to fit your agenda.

          • Nonsense . The winners could have graciously returned the stolen property – but they didn’t – greed overwhelmed them. The point being is that there are NO GOD given rights in the Constitution.

          • I see you refuse to understand the Founders’God inspired Constitution as much as you refuse to understand God’s natural law, and will heed no truth presented to you, so there’s no point in further wasting my time on your willful refusal. I shake your dust off, and don’t even think you’ve “won”, because you just became an eternal loser.

          • Oh my Lord, now you want to make the Constitution a religious relic. That is delusional.

          • No, we are not afraid God will send us to hell for making a cake for homosexual couple’s. We choose to not use our God given creativity to celebrate an event that is an abomination to Him. That is our choice as free individuals in a country that protects our freedom of choice.

          • Then if He won’t punish you for cake making, how about being kind and generous to the gay couple and try to win them over with love ?

          • The owners had been, if you would remember the historical facts that they had served the people numerous times before they refused to make a cake for the gay wedding. It is amazing how you discredit the Bible and its authority, yet you try and use it to say that Christians are wrong. Stop taking scripture out of context and using it for your own agenda. You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to scripture. Love is not always doing what someone wants. I would not be showing love to my wife if I assisted her in covering up her committing a murder. By making a cake for the ceremony, I am telling you it is okay what you are doing. Well any Christian in their right mind would refuse to give a positive reinforcement of your beliefs if it violates our God’s law. Pretty simple to understand.

          • I understand clearly the point you are failing to make. I think you basically misunderstand your responsibilities that go with declaring yourself a Christian. By the way, Jesus Christ never once made an instruction on sexuality. Such scant reference that there is – one arguably in the New Testament, and several primarily by Leviticus in the Old Testament – are clearly selective because in the same context Leviticus also suggests that we do barbaric things (the will of God) to wives and slaves.

          • Obviously you do not. Truth is Truth regardless of the context. I know the freedom and responsibilities as a Christian. Jesus did not mention a lot of things, specifically. He did endorse the law, but attacked the way the leaders were using it to create burdens on people. Their views are very similar to the ones you espouse. You completely miss the purpose of Jesus coming to Earth. God coming in the form of man to show that He cares more for us then we can comprehend.
            Now to the Old Testament. Are you God? Do you know why He made those proclamations? Until you have Omnipresence, you have no right to tell God what needs to be done. It was also in the Old Testament that God sent Jonah to Nineveh to proclaim the judgement coming upon them. That proclamation triggered a response of repentance and God had mercy on them and retracted the judgement. Unlike Sodom and Gomorrah, which were know for there rampant Homosexuality. God would have spared Sodom because Abraham asked God to spare it if He found but 10 people who feared God, in a city of tens of thousands of people. Just because God does not explain why they were to do something does not mean that God is horrible. The people of these lands were sacrificing their children to gods as well as many other horrible things. This was a physical judgement that the people of this land received, but they went to a place in wait of Christ’s work on the cross. God gives every person the chance to receive what He is offering and this physical realm is but a blip on the radar of eternity, but an important blip. The bottom line is that God would have been right to destroy all of humans for choice to not obey Him, because of the fact of who He his. But He had mercy on His creation becasue of His love for everyone of us, regardless of our past, present, or future choices.

          • Your question ‘Are you God’ can be thrown right back at those who claim to have heard the word of God. You should not descriube such information as ‘the word of God’ because another human claimed it to be so.

            Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah – there is extreme doubt that they ever existed – and were more likely rhetoric to make the morality more tangible and vibrant to simple folks.

          • Their claims are supported by the history contained within its pages and the prophecy. They said God would do something and He did it. That is called fulfilled prophecy. The Bible talks about prophecy a lot and how non-Jewish kings fulfilled the prophecies they knew nothing about. Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah; many other locations in the Bible that people said probably did not exist, low and behold they found them. Amazing. Do you know how little of the ancient world we have actually dug up? It is not a quick or easy process, obviously. And Sodom and Gomorrah would have been destroyed during the time of the Old Kingdom of Egypt or during the First Intermediate Period. There was no moral teaching or instruction given regarding Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible. It was a pronounced judgement that Abraham tried do divert away from Sodom because his nephew lived there. But God brought Lot out of Sodom before He destroyed it.

          • There is NO historical evidence that Sodom or Gomorah ever existed which is extremely unusual because there are artifacts remaining of virtually every civilization that ever existed. Of course you conveniently claim that ,since God destroyed it – he probably destroyed all evidence of it – and then have the gall to offer that as proof.. All it suggests is that you are extremely selective about which human accounts appeal to you.

          • Wow, you have a gift, because I do not remember making that claim. Can you quote that claim out of my post, please. Where I said God completely destroyed any evidence of the cities ever existing. I just said that there is a lot of the ancient world that we have not dug up. I also pointed out that many other places in the Bible had been thought to not exist, but at some point they have been found and are being studied. Sorry if you do not like the facts I presented. But I never said that what you claimed.

          • Perhaps I made an unfair assumptioin – but based upon the flippant way you simply try to support ‘God’s word’ thought the totally unsubstantiated words of others – I thought it was a reasonable leap.

          • Just because someone else has said the same thing means nothing, as everything you are saying is something someone else said first and you are just repeating what your preacher has told you. My Teacher shows me the facts and that proves what is true. Not theory upon theory that keeps changing, or layers theory upon theory to support its claims, never actually proving anything. Like I have told you numerous times, I know history, facts, and reality. These are what I study which continually points out the error of your reasoning, which continues to never have any support from anything that is known, just sometimes a lack of what is known. BTW Humans know very little, as is obvious, so frequently. Regardless of proclaimed beliefs, few people actually stand on facts alone. Being reasonable is based only on reality, if I actually made claims that were not supported by facts and claimed that they were facts, then you could assume that I will just use anything to try and defend the opinion that I hold. So feel free to judge me all you want, it does not mean it is true.

          • Trevor, you cannot seriously present a chapter in the bible as a fact.

          • I did not present a chapter, I presented a chunk of scripture as a second source of understanding what I was saying. I was not saying something was true because it says it right here in scripture. I said something was true and presented a chunk of scripture to express what I was saying. Get the context right, please.

          • The Greek word for fornication is ekporneuo, and it means to be utterly unchaste. It is the Greek word from which English derives the word pornography. A person who is utterly unchaste would have continuously unclean thoughts. That is why pornography is so dangerous because it can completely control the mind and make ones thoughts unchaste.

            The Bible then defines fornication as any sexual activity outside of marriage. It is an inclusive term. Remember, marriage is between one man and one woman. The definition of fornication would then include: heterosexual relations before marriage, homosexual relations at any time, incest, bestiality, prostitution and pornography. All sex outside of marriage is considered fornication by God.

            With this understanding that the New Testament identifies homosexuality as fornication, let’s look and see what the Lord Jesus said about it. The Lord said that what comes forth from the spiritual heart of a man defiles him. Sin originates from the heart and then proceeds to action. Fornication is one of the sins that He listed which defiles a man.

            Sin first originates in the heart, then is dwelt upon in the mind and then acted upon by the will. The Lord Jesus said that the act of fornication defiles a man. Fornication is lumped with the evils of murder, thefts, lying, etc. Both the books of Matthew and Mark record the Lord Jesus condemning fornication. He clearly addressed homosexuality and how evil it is. These Scriptures follow:

          • Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. (21) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,fornications, murders, (22) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: (23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

            Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. (19) For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: (20) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

          • No “defect” or “defection” either one “by design”. Not inLucifer, nor in you; rather, both of you chose to reject, by free will choices, God’s plan and design for you. No one made you do that; you chose.

          • I have always found this doctrinal view of God as being remarkably inconsistent with his stature as being omnipotent.
            Why would he create such imperfect beings as are humans – who are generally hardwired to fail and sin ?
            To give ‘free choice’ – really ? For what purpose ? It seems to me that if you are ordered to not sin, and by some miracle manage not to sin, then you have essentially given up free choice. Otherwise – apparently you get a first class ticket to hell.

          • Humans are not, never were “hard-wired”, or designed to fail. What fails, here, is your “logic” ( human understanding alone always will!), and your refusal to grasp or accept the simple explanation that humans CHOSE to listen to the wrong voice and by so doing, briught corruption (sin) into perfectionand BROKE it! God KNEW they would do so, but chose, none-the-less to give us a chance to choose rightly. WE failed, not Him.

          • Your behavioral choices can be explained much more logically – and efficiently by the Golden rules. If you put your fingers on a hot stove, they will burn. You tend to not do that again.
            Humans always try to do all the wrong things before they get it right. That is called learning. But since they are essentially imperfect – as are all biological species – who constantly over time have to evolve in order to survive in a changing environment – they are traveling along a road that has an abrupt end. All species will become extinct eventually – most that we know of already have done so – and so will humans. That is because they too will fail to evolve in a hostile environment. Crisis management- which is the facility of humanly engineered solutions – is like playing russian roulette. We might be able to delay the inevitable, but never overcome it.

          • Wow, absolutely no scientific credibility in that entire post. Holding completely contradictory ideas. If everything will eventually become extinct, then there is absolutely no reason anything exists. Plus absolutely no grounds for life coming from non-life. Where did life come from?

          • You should know (and believe) that there was no beginning, and that there will be no end. Not only is that current science in quantum physics – but also suggested very strongly in theology.

          • Science points to an initial big bang, that scientists tried to use as the source of everything. However the very concept is a creation moment, like an omnipotent God speaking and something coming from nothing. I know they are trying to prove that black matter is the cause of the creation of everything, but I bring the issue to a few billion years after that and there being no way for life to come into existence with a designer putting it together.

          • That is no longer scientific theory as a one time axiomatic event. The current theories in string theory and others, postulate that the contraction and expansion of the universe – which happens at extraordinary speeds, occurs in parallel dimensions and is and always has been cyclical.

          • Of course, because something becomes nothing becomes something becomes nothing because something becomes nothing becomes something because something becomes nothing becomes something because something becomes nothing becomes something because something becomes nothing becomes something because something becomes nothing becomes something, for all of eternity. That makes since. Plus the fact that whatever new theory that comes out that tries to prove that God was not needed, keeps falling apart, or having to be changed to try and account for the reality that they discover as they investigate the universe that constantly says, “I WAS CREATED.” I refer back to billions of years after the most recent big bang and life existing.

          • You are comparing apples to oranges. You poohoo scientific evidence – which by its very nature is a work in perpetual motion – with something that requires no proof – also known as BELIEF.

          • It does not require proof, but the evidence is everywhere, and becomes more obvious as we learn more about everything. There is not an area of science where the “facts” do not point to a Creator. I directed your attention twice to molecular biology which points to the need of a creator. Is there another area of scientific “fact” that you want to bring to the discussion and I will show you how it required a creator.

          • ‘There is not an area of science where the “facts” do not point to a Creator.’

            I would suggest that that is fanciful and if you were more diligent in researching that topic, particularly quantum physics that exactly the opposite conclusion has been reached by the most eminent in that field.

            There are two books that you should read – each of which has been printed more than four million times – ‘The Illustrated Brief History of Time’ and ‘The Universe In A Nutshell’ both by Stephen Hawking. They are both designed to be read by the layman although some background in physics and math is highly desirable.

            There have – over the years – been a number of scientists, who have suggested that there was a creator – sometimes because they reached a level of complication that they either could not explain, or that they were pandering to the establishment so as not to stir the sort of negativity that would challenge deeply held religious beliefs.
            Even I am willing to substitute the word ‘God’ for ‘Infinity’ because they are both notions that are axiomatic and have no relation to the boundaries that human logic have set of time and space – both of which are meaningless in quantum physics.

            But if you manage to read and comprehend Hawking – you will be very much more challenged in trying to defend your belief in a Higher Power – because there is really nothing in his explanation that gives such convenient explanations any support.

          • As you pointed out and as is always the case, and will always be the case. Scientists will always come to a point where there is an unknown factor. You can choose to call it whatever you want, but the reality that there is a God who exists eternally and from who all things that exist were brought into existence, is ever more evident as the facts come pouring in through our study of all that exists. The existence of God is not a convenient explanation. It complicates everything beyond human comprehension. The complication that is the most prevalent is that it forces people to confront the reality that we were not created for our own glory. The world does not revolve around us and we are accountable to God. Molecular biology is an area of science that is well understood, as opposed to quantim physics, and it shows the interconnected precision that is required for life to exist. It proves that life cannot create itself, or happen by any amount of accidental occurences.. Quantim physics cannot prove otherwise.

          • I have no problem with using the term ‘God’ to indicate a mystery that current science has not (yet) solved. All of your other observations are what is more commonly known as ‘faith’ and prove nothing.

          • Faith is not suppose to prove anything, by its very definition. History, science, knowledge, prove my faith. If God created everything, as He says He did in the Bible. Then no matter what area of science I study I can expect to see His work in that area. That is what is seen. God has shown me the work He has accomplished with His hands and has proven that truth over and over again. Despite my doubt. He has shown me so many times that He created/designed it that I now look for His involvement, no matter where I study. Though my faith and knowledge are connected, I no longer allow a new human idea to threaten the basis of my understanding that God is the source. Since He has proven to me that He is objective and humans tend to be subjective.

            The next question I faced is, “Who is this God/eternal source?” Why did He create it? Does He care about what goes on within it? If He doesn’t care, why does He allow it to continue? How do I find out anything about a god, and know that it is real? Just a few of the questions that I have faced, in my doubt, and which the God that revealed Himself in the Bible, has faithfully proven to me that He is that eternal source.

          • If ‘faith is not suppose to prove anything, by its very definition’ (your words)
            then how come
            ‘has faithfully proven to me that He is that eternal source.’ ?

            That is just illogical.

          • Faith is faith. Science is the study of everything that He has created. His creation points to Him. Which it does, proving He is that eternal source. Life also returns evidence, even when I lived apart from Him, He was involved in my life. I did not accept that it was Him until after I submitted my life to Him.

            God reinforces faith, as His prerogative. We are the soil. He is the seed, sun, water, gravity, nutrients, and everything else needed for the seed of faith to grow in us. If we are not soft from humility before God, His seed will not even begin growing.

            He proves Himself to all that seek Him. He is Truth, so if you seek Truth, no matter where it may lead, then you will find Him faithful. He does not promise to align His will with our desires, rather He promises to align our will with His desires; but that is dependent on a person’s willingness to let go of everything to seek Truth, in accordance with His timing and not our own. We can expect God to reveal Himself, but we do not get to pick the time or place. He is not on our timeline, we are on His. He is God and we are the creation. God explains in the Old Testament that His ways are above our ways and His thoughts above ours. What man can educate God or be His teacher?
            Pride leads to disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.
            God promises knowledge and understanding to those who are faithful, and warns those who seek to glorify themselves. Bottom line is that It is that simple. Will we choose to humble ourselves, or be humbled by God.

          • It is not my intention to challenge your beliefs. They have absolutely nothing to do with scientific discovery. I – and many others simply do not share them. I do also have a belief system that explains what infinity is – but unfortunately there is no evidence of any moral purpose, or even moral judgment in how it operates. What I can share with you is that every part of you is infinite too, is indestructible but will forever change forms as it passes through an infinite cycle of phases. That – if you like – could be viewed as God.

          • The problem is that infinite is impossible itself. The energy and architecture has to have a source. Information does not just exist. Keep putting your hope in that realm and at some point, your universe will crash in on you. I am amazed by your faith, as it seems to require absolutely no evidence. Yet, I am viewed as the crazy person because I have mountains of evidence that their is a creative force and that force(God) is very much involved n His creation.

          • As I said – I believe in infinity – I cannot prove it – and it is a fundamental in mathematics and of course astrology and quantum physics. The universe that we can observe is expanding which suggests that it has no boundaries (infinity). We know also (scientifically) that nothing can be destroyed – it simply changes form.
            You are fooling yourself if you think you have evidence of your belief. You have beliefs which is a perfectly fine thing because I doubt whether you spend much time delving in mathematics, astrology, or quantum physics- so a religion is a convenient way to explain the unexplainable.

          • Stuff might not get destroyed completely, but it does become less then it was. Every moment something occurs, energy is lost. The used energy is gone forever. Energy is not self producing, or replicating. Everything starts with a potential energy and the potential goes down as the energy is used. Like all the stars in the universe. They are formed with a certain amount of potential energy. As they produce energy they have less potential energy remaining. The energy that leaves goes out into the universe, getting used, or simply traveling for infinity because it never hits anything that will use the energy. The energy that comes to earth gets used by everything it hits to accomplish numerous tasks, but the energy is never perfectly used, some is lost. We do not see your claims working like that here on earth. So it is not scientifically credible, it is a flawed theory held by your atheist astro-scientists who need something to cling to to deny that there is a personal God, who cares for every person He has created, whom they know they are accountable too. All of creation, everything that is “known”, speaks to having been created by an infinite intelligent designer, not an infinite nothing.

          • Energy cannot be destroyed.
            Energy can be converted from one form to another, though. Mechanical energy, such as the kinetic energy of motion, can be converted to heat energy, for example in the heating of a car’s brakes when it slows down. Chemical energy in the gasoline of the car can be converted into both heat energy in the exhaust and heating the engine, and into mechanical energy to move the car. Potential energy, such as the gravitational potential energy stored in an object which is on a high shelf, can be converted into kinetic energy as the object falls down. Electrical energy can be converted to heat or mechanical energy or sound energy in a variety of useful ways around the house using common appliances.

            It is often the conversion of one form of energy to another which is the most important application of this rule. Often predictions of the behavior of physical systems are very much more easily made when using the idea that the total amount of energy remains constant. And careful measurements of different kinds of energy before and after a transformation always show that the total always adds up to the same amount.

            Historically, of course not all the forms of energy were known to begin with. Scientists had to keep inventing more forms to keep the law of energy conservation true. If that process had gotten too messy or complicated to make sense, we would have had to give up the law.

            One very interesting feature of energy is that other forms can be converted into rest mass and back again (particle physicists do this every day in their accelerators). Einstein’s E=mc^2 gives the relationship between the rest mass of a particle (measured in standard mass units) and the amount of energy that corresponds to (measured in standard energy units). It even applies to other systems where particles are neither created nor destroyed. If a box contains some air at a temperature, and then is warmed up, it will become ever so slightly more massive because of the extra energy given to it. You can call that rest mass of the whole box or the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of the particles in it- nature doesn’t care what names you give it.

          • The rest matter does not just begin moving by putting it in a particle accelerator. Energy is applied from an external source into the matter via the particle accelerator. Despite your claim that energy is not lost in conversion holds no scientific weight. Total energy is lost. Just because it appears to be a minuscule amount, does not take away from that fact. You multiply a minuscule amount by the many conversions that happen in a short period of time and you have a significant amount. There is just so much energy in the universe that scientists try ignore it, or continue to look for a way for the lost energy to enter back into the box, which leads to your argument.

            In your argument about the box, you are neglecting the fact that energy is being added by the source of the warmth, the energy from outside the box is going inside the box, so naturally the energy inside the box increases. If you created a box that energy had no influence on then you could put a sun next to the box, on the outside, and the energy from the sun will have no influence on the mass on the inside of the box. If their was an entire ecosystem inside the box that did not have any new energy being added to it, the energy will slowly dwindle. If you took our sun away, all life on earth would die. It is dependent on the replenishment of energy from the sun. All energy comes from the sun, as all energy is a result of its reactions and its gravitational pull, minus a little bit that comes from the other stars in the universe.

          • It is simply not true that all energy comes from the sun. The sun throws off energy as it slowly burns to death. All light is energy – in fact energy can be represented in wave forms – which at the basic level can also describe biological life. But this is becoming a very complex discussion so I am not going to open that door except to say that when you break down the molecular structure of everything – you are left with atoms – which can be represented as neutrons and protons – which are essentially blobs of energy in waves. A nuclear reaction decouples these relationships so fast that an enormous (and very destructive) energy wave is released – from everything in its past. This released energy travels through space – some of it colliding with othe wave forms and some not.

            I recommend

            A Brief History of Time (1988)
            and
            The Universe in a Nutshell (2001)

            both by Stephen Hawkings – who as you probably know is the preeminent living quantum physicist where he gives a very readable and complete picture of the Universe as we know it today. The

          • Beyond Steven Hawking being an obvious genius, I do not give him much credibility. His belief system turns itself against him, in that, his mother should have aborted him. I know very well how atoms work. Atoms are not self sufficient. They require energy being added to continue to maintain their exact positions. This loss of energy is seen in the frequent shifting of atoms in their combining and dividing with other atoms, or molecules with molecules.
            I know of these books and have seen numerous pieces pulled out of them that fall extremely short of scientific understanding, with Hawking basically saying that because it had to be, it was. This points to your belief in an unintelligent infinite source that somehow created an intelligent universe. I just choose to recognize that the appearance of intelligent design within the universe, points to an an intelligent designer.

          • Let me respond to your belief in ‘Intelligent Design’ like this,

            A typical religious challenge:

            ‘Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.’

            The scientific response::

            Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

            As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet’s). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare’s entire play in just four and a half days.

          • Here is my “religious” challenge

            First issue. An intelligent being programmed the software to be able to do what you said. Second issue. Many other intelligent beings developed the device the first intelligent being used to interpret the software.

            Third issue random is random. The mindless force you believe allowed for evolution cannot know if a “letter” is in the right place. It does not have any intelligence. It does not know what is desirable and what is not. The evolution we see occurring throughout history is a general adaptation to the environment. There is no new information obtained through any scientific observation of evolutionary processes.

            Fourth issue. You try and take just one area of the evolutionary process and show how that might accomplish what you want, though your example failed. You forgot about the amino acid sequence for each of the proteins coming together, before the proteins came together. Then what? The proteins randomly come together and make DNA? No, DNA isn’t made by or made of proteins. DNA is made up of, simply put, a nucleotide that contains a sugar and a phosphate molecule, along with one of the four organic bases.

            The simplest single celled organism is composed of 4 million base pairs of nucleotides, within its DNA. Even if all of those pieces accidentally came together, they do not have the mechanical processes in place to complete the tasks which they carry the information for. DNA is just the information. There are numerous other machines needed to read the information, translate it, communicate to the appropriate machine, and then the final machine to perform the work sent to it. Plus machines to take the final product to the place it needs to go to perform the function it was created for. Each piece of the process has to be in place for DNA to even be useful. The machines know what they are suppose to do. The DNA is the information that they need. The extreme complexity in even a “simple” organism shows the impossibility of life accidentally forming. It is not a matter of even a million pieces coming together through some process.
            Simply put, the machines within the cells have to have accidentally formed at the same exact moment that the proper information within a DNA strand formed, or you have something that is unable to accomplish anything. The funny thing is is that the machines within each cell are dependent on the machines that came before it to make them. Machines do not accidentally form. Machines are a product of intelligent design.

          • All human intelligence is based upon theory I imagine you think that intelligence is also based upon faith. Well it that is true then faith based intelligence must compete with intelligence based upon observation – a process that is in constant flux.
            The scientific method also uses axioms which are really calculus acting as place holders and adapted to conform to what we have observed. Infinity is one of these axioms. We do not really understand it but we accept it because it makes all the sciences possible.

            I am one of those who believes that there was no beginning and that there will be no end. Except in the constraints of human understanding. The concept of time – is also an axiom which is a convenient fiction – after all time is bound to a geographical location – which is really something of a kludge.

          • Human intelligence is measured in multiple ways. To which intelligence are you referring? There are many intelligent people who do not have the faith that I have. Such as yourself. Intelligence does not produce faith and faith does not produce intelligence. Intelligence is a gift from God, given by Him in proportion to His plans.
            I am not arguing the concept of infinity is not relevant to everything that exists, just that infinity is limited by the only one who has existed for it, giving it its value. Ifuly accept the limitations of human understanding and knowledge, but I also know that those liitations will leave when God removes those who serve Him from the restrictions in the box that we exist and brings us into the eternal existence that He had planned for us from the eternal beginning. The Bible speaks very highly of eternal matters, but they are eternal only because of the Creator, who is the eternal one.

          • It follows therefore – that if infinity is a fact (and logically it must be so) then there is an infinite amount of time in which to evolve what you call intelligent design, In my opinion evolution is constant just a form decay is constant and some forms win because they are simply better adapted for the moment in which they will become a structure.

          • It does not have infinite time, as the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, and life began at least 3.5 billion years ago; according to scientists who believe that.
            The whole point of the previous post is that life cannot evolve from non life. It requires multiple pieces that are dependent upon each other for their very existence. One piece cannot exist without the other pieces, just as those other pieces cannot exist without the first ones. There is a relationship within a single celled organism that shows that matter and energy cannot accidentally form a working organisms, regardless of giving it an infinite amount of time. Giving something all the time in the universe does not give it enough time to produce life, regardless of what Steven Hawking states, with no actual proof. Other then it exists, because it must exist. That is called circular reasoning and Hawking seems to use it every time he comes to this problem of life. It is in His books.
            I will again encourage you to really investigate molecular biology, I explained it in short form in my previous post, but it is much more complex and grandiose then even the leading researchers understand. That according to their own words. And those are researchers from all backgrounds.

          • Well this is the last post I shall make on the topic. It was not my intention to start a debate, but to really try and show you that there are differences in the beliefs that one has. Please notice that I did not attempt to denigrate your opinions or your beliefs and that we may both understand some of the mysteries in different but not necessarily contradictory ways. I simply have a different explanation for the phenomena that we can both accept – does exist.

          • Now for my belief system.

            If you have enlightenment, it is possible to read the words of Jesus Christ and have no conflict with the true understanding of eternity. Prophets have a mission to try and explain the unexplainable in terms of acceptance, rather than proof. And so they employ a variety of techniques which will allow the uninitiated to see that their existence is as significant as the largest sun, and as common as a grain of sand.

            There was no beginning, and there will be no end. Your ego or sense of identity is a human emotion, and has no context in eternity. You will experience existence in many forms, as many as your intersections with the many dimensions will occur. It is limitless and an endless activity. And it happens simultaneously without any concept of time.

            You should have noted that with my own postulation: ‘ it is possible to read the words of Jesus Christ and have no conflict with the true understanding of eternity.

            You may use the word ‘God’ to describe a notion of which I see as ‘eternity’. Where we probably divert in views, however, is that I see neither the concept of morality, nor the ego, as being more than a part of the very narrow dimension of what we know as mortal life. Additionally, to retain integrity in the concept of infinity – there is really no ‘after-life’ – but a continuum of existence, probably (in my view) in multiple parallel forms.

            The analogy is a ray of light; it carries an infinite spectrum of wave lengths. We see only a narrow range of this spectrum, but the rest is still there, traveling on an infinite journey through an universe with no time boundaries.

          • Jesus Christ does not allow himself to be described as a prophet, or any other title, other than God. You cannot accept some piece of the Bible and reject others. You have no basis for doing so.

            So, in your view I can do anything I want and it has no consequence in eternity since that part of humans does not go beyond death? So no one has any right to tell me that I cannot murder, rape, and steal to my egos content. Survival of the fittest. Make sure my seed produces all the babies in the world and that no one else gets any food or water. That way I know my genes will carry on and be the dominant type in the world. Sounds a lot like what Hitler and the Nazi’s had in mind. See what your world view produces?

            Well that is a nice picture, with all sorts of warm fuzziness, but all belief systems have to have a basis, otherwise they are figments of people’s imaginations. Your belief system is a very hopeful wish that has nothing to support it.
            Christianity has a few thousand years of history and a claim that it is God’s special revelation to mankind. It has fulfilled prophecy to support its claims. It has historical facts to support that the understanding contained within it did not come from the understanding of men, but a gift, like Jesus Christ. For it is God’s desire that none perish, because of there egos, but that all would know Him and the One He sent to fix the problem, we created and are unable to fix ourselves. That is the condition of man. That is what is so obvious in the world. But Satan has chalked it up to, God and I do not exist, and you can go on only living for yourself, because there is no eternal judgement coming from the God who does not exist.

            Your belief system has no basis, the truth speaks for itself in all of creation. As I continually point out and you continually ignore. Hope is found in truth, but you must be willing to let go of thinking that you are your own and actually evaluate not only the scientific evidence but also really investigate what is within the Scriptures, then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Not free from consequence, but free from eternal separation from the infinite source, which you probably know as being described as a horrible experience.

          • Regarding the origin of life as we know it on earth – it has been shown that meteoric collisions into the earth often carry the animo acids which are necessary for the creation of life. In the last few years, very primitive life forms have been produced in laboratories from the same raw materials. It is not possible to simulate the adaptation of these primitive life forms yet, to demonstrate evolution. However genome research has produced the DNA tracing that demonstrate rather conclusively how life is all built from the same building blocks.

          • Wow, there has been no life produced in a lab, they have accidentally created proteins in the lab, but no life. And it is not an easy step from an accidental protein to a living organism as I will talk about at the end. Lets get that fact out there. Yes the building blocks are basic, just like most every great structure that humans have built. The pyramids were built with very simple material, however we do not look at and say, oh look at what the desert has created with time. The design is impossible to have occurred accidentally. The design of life is so complicated that we have spent fifty years studying it and still do not understand how it all works together. You have to have an organism that is fully capable of receiving energy and reproducing. DNA is a long link of information required to be in the order it is in for the living organism to do what it needs to do. DNA is built up of those building blocks, that you described, but it takes millions of them in the right order for life to be able to exist. That is the reality.

            Along with that, the organism would have to have all of the many machines within the cell to produce the results that the DNA gives instructions to do. DNA alone accomplishes nothing, the cellular machines are created by and are directed by the information within DNA. Both the machines and the DNA had to be present for DNA to replicate itself. If some information accidentally came together when asteroids hit the earth, they still would not of had any way to reproduce, because the information cannot do anything by itself. Study micro-biology and you will learn more, but that is a basic explanation of the requirement for life to exist.

          • http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1332/

            Not quite life as we know it – but most definitely a demonstration showing that life can indeed be probably created from scratch.

            My guess is that the next stage will come in our lifetime.

          • Scrambled thinking in all areas.

          • Yeah, you sure showed me.

          • sandraleesmith46

            I wasn’t “trying to show you”, simply making an observation on your comment, for the benefit of those not yet closed-minded.

          • Yes, because my comment was so close-minded, asking a question that no one responded to. Just calling my thinking scrambled, with no basis for doing so. If you cannot follow those few sentences of logical deduction then that is on you, but your statement proves nothing for your case. It only shows those, who are “not close minded,” who is using their God given brain.

          • sandraleesmith46

            I “follow” what you’re mislabeling as logic, and I pointed out simply that your thinking is scrambled on all points. If you were truly using your God given brain, you would also understand Morten’s statement. Species’ go extinct for several reasons, and human kind IS on an extinction path currently. My basis is science, as well as Biblical.

          • I stated that his claim had no scientific credibility. It did not align with our knowledge in any area of science. The entire planet is on an extinction path because of man. It does not give any credibility to the claims that Morten made, which fall short of reality.

          • sandraleesmith46

            This world is on the downward trajectory because of SIN and people who persist in its practice, not man as a whole. It’s your claim that falls short of the reality, which you choose to not recognize.

          • So you hold to some of the Bible, but not all of it? Which claim are you referring to. You make general statements and never point to what you are referring to. All of mankind sin!!! So all of mankind is responsible.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Do you comprehend”original sin”, and what it encompasses? THAT sin is what hurt the Earth, not individual day-to-day sins. But not every individual sin impacts the environment in any case. Humans are just not that “capable”; we are NOT causing “global warming”, “climate change” or whatever you want to call it this week. EARTH does that REGARDLESS what inhabits it and/or acts upon its surface. It was doing that since long before humans ever appeared on its surface.

          • Like I said you seem to believe bits and pieces of the Bible. If you believed the Bible you would understand that Original sin is the cause of original death. Nothing, with the breath of life, died before sin, as stated in the Bible. So there is no long period of time before humans life, allowed by the interpretation of the Bible.

            I do not believe that global warming specifically by humans is happening. Though individual sin always has consequences. It is not apocalyptic like you think I believe, for some reason. Not sure why you think I believe any of that.

            I do not think you fully understand the conversation I was having with Morton. I have had near a hundred posts back and forth with Him, all over this discussion board. Some of his stated beliefs in other posts contradict stuff He said in this post and stuff does not line up with our scientific understanding.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Simple yes or no question: have YOU actually read the whole Bible yourself, as a contiguous book?

          • Are you asking in historical order or the order that your Bible has them in?
            Yet again I make some very specific remarks. You completely ignore them, and go to some other area to try and discredit me. Yet you make no remark as to where my points fall short within a biblical context.

          • sandraleesmith46

            I’m seeking to dicern whether you in fact KNOW Biblical context, or not, because it doesn’t appear to be so.

          • Yet, you present no biblical evidence against what I have presented, pointing to the idea that you do not KNOW biblical context. You are just trying to discredit me for whatever reason, presenting no clear arguments for whatever you disagree with.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Biblical context is Genesis 1:1- Revelation 22:21; that’s the context I work from, and YOU stiil haven’t answered, or perhaps your non-answer should suffice as a “no”.

          • You have yet to respond to anything, why should I answer your one question more directly?

          • Oh yeah, I forgot to add that Biblical context is a whole lot more then just the story from beginning to end.

          • Biblical context has a lot more too it then just what is written. You have not answered my questions, so I am not going to answer yours.

          • What part of my post, that you responded too, was not clearly presenting the problem of the argument within the prior post from Morton212?

          • We are all born with a sin nature, as the Bible declares, because of the original sin by Adam. Your problem is that you try and connect reality that was before sin occurred, after it occurred, and after Jesus completed the work that He had come to do. Free choice is fundamental. If there is no free choice, you cannot choose to praise God. Adam was not ordered to not sin. God told Adam to not eat from one specific tree, out of the entire garden he had created for Adam to enjoy. He gave him one choice in obeying him. I have free choice and I sin. However, that is what reality is now that Jesus has completed the work of providing forgiveness for all who believe. I can sin, but know I am not going to hell because of it. That does not give me a license to sin, as is discussed in the New Testament. This discussion is going into a direction of the Holy Spirit’s role in the relationship with God. No person is perfect, but we can choose to follow God’s directions in our life by submitting it to Him knowing that He knows what is best. But our actions do not earn us forgiveness. The only thing that gives forgiveness is faith. Faith that God has completed the work necessary for our forgiveness, so that we can live in the knowledge that He loves us, even when we were His enemies, as is also declared within the Bible.

          • The more you try and justify your beliefs, the more totally illogical your reasoning becomes. You would do better to simply say that you believe – even if I find it absurd.

          • I am not trying to justify anything to you. I am presenting you the reality of what is in the Bible, so that you know. Just because you are incapable of following the reasoning, does not make it illogical. You are just unwilling to actually see how my post is in response to yours and stay on topic with the discussions you are starting.

          • Oh, but you are trying to justify your dogmatic understanding. For the record I was educated at one of the most prestigious episcopalian/anglican schools that exists and am very comfortable with theological debate and am trying to see just how deep your knowledge of Christianity is. The bible, by the way, has many differing translations – some of them very different from what the orthodox King James translation has suggested – and which are often erroneous.

          • Obviously there are many translations, with the translators focused on different emphasis in the process that is translation. It is funny how you hold the King James version as the standard though, since it is itself a translation. For a bit of the KJV you have to understand how the readers of the 1600’s would have understood it, as it was translated to the common tongue of the day. Do you know what a unicorn is?
            Their are a few translations that I use and often return to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for the complete understanding of the varying words and interpretations. The challenge for translators today is that our language is so watered down that you could write a paragraph to explain the meaning of many of the words as they were penned in the original documents. Education means very little in understanding the Bible. The Pharisees and Sadducees had been educated in what we call the Old Testament since they were very little. Yet Jesus called them hypocrites, fools, and snakes. He called them the offspring of Satan. See how well the knowledge served them.

          • No, He did NOT;Satan, formerly known as Lucifer, and about 1/3 of his fellow angels did that when they chose to rebel against the laws of God’s natural order, and then lead humans astray with themselves.

          • God created everything according to His character, which is perfect. We as humans violated it when we chose to take one of the God’s characteristics, He bestowed upon us, and chose it over obedience to Him.

          • Morton is obviously a fag. Don’t bother wasting time on it. He’s been fooled into thinking that being a queer is normal. He obviously is a confused person. Most of us know better and agree that homos have a serious problem. We should mirror what Russia does to these sick confused people. They will ultimately pay the price for selling out.

          • He didn’t create satan. Satan, at one time was the bright morning star until he wanted to be God. In the war between good and evil he was cast down to earth. Guess what? Through the choice of eating from that tree, we have sin. God gave us free moral agency to choose. What did you choose? I chose good.

          • No, God created Lucifer, and Lucifer created Satan. He had a FREE WILL. The potential was there but God did not create it.

          • Yes, with a free will to choose, as He did each of us. But all choices have consequences, for good or ill. The consequences of sin are for ill.

          • Satan convinced sin is good, and they did eat.

          • Wrong again; sin so distorted and “broke” what He created, by HUMAN choices, that those things came to be;God did NOT create them as such.

          • Another misunderstanding of how things work and what sin caused within creation.

          • God hates homosexuality and it is written plain and clearly. If you dont know how to read that is your problem not ours.

          • I wouldn’t know. I have never met Him, nor do I trust anyone who say they have.

          • You are full of stupid comments. Go and read the Bible and you will know Him. There is no worst blind man than the one that dont want to open his eyes.

          • I have no problem with the Faithful. As long as they do not try to impose their beliefs upon others.

          • God did not create Adam and Steve, and they can’t have a baby without a female.

          • No, he did NOT create homosexuals, or that behavior. That’s a learned behavioral disorder, not something congenital. None of the prophets,was “homophobic” either. They simply detest SIN, which homosexual, as well as all dysfunctional behaviors, stem from, AS they should, since our God also detests sin. God’s statements are crystal clear, insofar as His position on homosexual behavior: in His eyes, it’s an abomination. The “thou shalt not…” means DON’T do it!

          • A skeptic would call that a defective design – like a computer that has bugs. That would seem to be illogical if God is indeed omnipotent..

          • Computers are NOT designed with bugs;those come aboard later, via corrupted software, not unlike the corruptions sin has caused in mind, body and soul of all life on Earth, human or otherwise;some intentional, some not, but NONEa design defect God created! And it’s NOT illogical, when you GET that God wasn’t creating automatons, but beings with free will to choose. Had He desired automatons, He would have so created us.

          • I believe I have answered your beliefs rather conclusively. Because you are imbued with faith and are determined to see what you want to see – rather than what is really there – I have no doubt that you will reject my reasoning as well.
            It is a sad distortion of real faith – not unlike the wife whose husband has run off with another woman, who never remarries and lives with the delusion that he will eventually return to her when he realizes (you think) the mistake he has made.

          • Amazing how many stories I have heard about stories that you just described. The husband returning in repentance.

          • No, spouting the same tired nonsense others lke you who choose to not accept reality have spouted for millenia answers nothing. “Real” faith can nly be resred in Just sus Christ, through repentance and redemption by grace, which you apparently reject. Nobody left me, and the only One “coming back” is Jesus, as He promised.

          • As hard as you might try, you have no religious rights in the commercial world. You play by the rules or clobber a discrimination suit as quickly as I can blink my eyes. That my righteous friend is reality in a secular State with a secular Constitution. The Constitution guarantees your right to practice your religion in a registered place of worship – freely and also your first amendment rights to believe in whatever you like. But that’s the end of the road. Move out of that domain and we will throw the book at you just like the wedding cake baker.

          • No sir, not according to our Constitution. “Shall not infringe…” means just that, and “free exercise” means anywhere and everywhere, including our workplaces, particularly those we own. The Constitution does NOT confine us to a timeand/or place in which we “may” worship. You have no lawful book to throw at us. YOU are violating OUR rights in doing so, and so are your corrupt and evil “judges” with their hate-filled biases!

          • Yes, but in practice you much exercise restraint so as not to offend the religious beliefs of others. So that means you should do it in private or a designated place of worship.

          • Wrong again. There is nowhere, in our aBible, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independance, any requirement to “not offend”, or right to not be offended. So that means no such thing.

          • Giving every one rights to worship how they wish means also that you must respect the rights of others. Obviously homosexuals who wish to marry find your belief offensive if it attempts in any way to disrupt what they believe in. That is your answer.

          • Rights are NOT feelings. There is , once more, NO right to not feel offended, by another’s RIGHTS. And we find homosexuals’ intrusion into our religious rites, uninvited, more than offensive. Take your CIVIL right to a state union and leave God ordained marriage alone.

          • You can be as offended as you wish – the Constitution is not an antidote for misplaced emotions. But it offers no shell for selfish morality.

          • That’s because sexual immorality is perversion, evidenced by the laws of every state admitted into the union. That is, until recent activists pushed through legislation and incited illegal decrees from judges.

          • Sexual immorality is primarily a subjective option. There are some activities that are considered exploitive where there is no legal consent between the partners; if you want to call that sexual immorality then we can agree., That would include polygamy where according to our laws and jurisprudence there can be no legal consent because it is a legally exploitive relationship. Bestiality is another activity where there can be no legal consent – and incest retains the essence of exploitation even after the legal age of consent because it is presumed that the sexual identity of the the exploited party is corrupted, besides which there are real risks of birth defects should that occur.

          • Are you a lawyer? You sound like one (not necessarily a bad thing, but it often doesn’t help when dealing with common sense).
            1. Of course polygamy is an arrangement of consent – who states otherwise? If there is no consent then it is abduction, forced slavery and what-have-you, correct? If it IS with consent (by all those practicing it) then what right do you have to claim it is illegitimate?
            2. Bestiality=no consent? Are you serious?
            3. Incest – please see point #! above.
            I am fascinated to carry on this discussion, and to find out what you think about these things. Thanks in advance for the reply. 🙂

          • 1. I hold a law degree but spent my career in technology and finance.

            2) Animals cannot give legal consent.

            3) Incest. In US jurisprudence – The “capacity to marry” includes the fundamental a priori reasoning that both persons must not be married to others.

          • 1. Gratz on the degree. 🙂
            2. Please, oh please, tell me you aren’t a member of PETA?
            3. I’m sorry, but that just sounds so phunny to me. Is this one of those “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is,” is?” kinda moments?

          • Animals do not have an equal relationship with humans. Humans may own them. Therefore there is no legal consent (from them) for anything you choose to do to them. It may seem mundane to you, but is the legal rebuff to stupid hissy claims of marital relationships with animals.

            You may not like (3) but that is the precise legal reason that polygamy is illegal under our law. There is a very long precedence of what ‘a priori’ reasoning supports that law.

            So now I have basically answered the specious claims that gay marriages would open the door to very unseemly other kinds of relationships.

          • I never mentioned “marrying” an animal. Where exactly did you get that from?
            Polygamy is illegal because people understand – or at least they used to understand – that a family begins with a husband and wife. That principle is based on Gen 2:21-23.

          • Actually polygamy was widely practiced under biblical law. The reason for secular being illegal under our secular law is that it is ‘a priori’ a violation of consent..

          • Please provide some Scriptural references which support your contention.

            Also, please provide evidence that polygamy is a violation of consent.

            Thanks for the extra work. 🙂

          • ‘a priori’ is a legal maxim. It has been made axiomatic through the process of jurisprudence. I will see if I can find a discourse on how that happened but probably not today. (that relates to the illegality of polygamy in our system). It goes back very far in law. The last time it was argued was in the time of Henry the VIII when he requested parliament and the Archbishop of Canterbury permission for a polygamous marriage – because Katherine of Arragon was not producing an heir,. and her brother was the King of Spain – and – as we know was infuriated for several reasons that his sister would be so disrespected. The adamant refusal by his advisers was not based upon fear of war – that was in the King’s domain, but upon the basis of consent.

          • But the Supreme Court does, as the sole institution empowered to interpret the Constitution.

          • Not according to the Constitution;WE the PEOPLE are thefinal arbiters of what is or isNOT Constitutional. SCOTUS long ago overstepped its bounds, its sole purpose being to decide disputes between states, NOT to create laws.

          • Yes indeed we are – but it takes a heck of a lot of We the People to agree on what any interpretation should be – so in the Age of Congressional Deadlock, the effective arbiter is likely to remain the SCOTUS – indefinitely.

          • If you think the US was founded as a secular state, then you don’t know history.

          • It was founded as a secular state, although many of the Founders had religious beliefs. They were visionaries who understood that in a new world with many different faiths – there was no room for dogma at the governing level.

          • My statement still stands. If the US was founded as a secular state, then why the myriad references to God (the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible)? Why all the laws directly taken from both OT and NT? Why all the continuing Scripture references in so many federal and state buildings?

          • Which Constitutional laws are directly taken from the OT or the NT ?
            Regarding references to God, it was the custom of the day. The Constitution is explicit about not being attached to any religion, and there are no references to any kind of religious morality, religious law or subjugation to such.

          • “Which Constitutional laws are directly taken from the OT or the NT ?” Deut 17:15/Art II, Sec1 and Ezra 18:20/Art III, Sec 3 are the first two that come to mind. There are more.

            “Regarding references to God, it was the custom of the day.” Because the vastly overwhelming population – including those who put this thing together – were avowed Christians. Thanks for proving my point.

            “The Constitution is explicit about not being attached to any religion…” True (mostly).

            “…and there are no references to any kind of religious morality, religious law or subjugation to such.” Also true (mostly). However, let me ask you a few questions, if I may.

            1. Q-What would you do to describe how to operate a computer? A-You write a manual.

            2. Q-What would you do to describe how to complete a particular chemical experiment? A-You write a manual.

            3. Q-What would you do to describe how to operate a car? A-You write a manual.

            4. Q-What would you do to describe how to operate a federal system of government? A-You write a manual.

            Just because God isn’t mentioned specifically in these other ‘manuals’ they still accomplish their intended purpose – correct? So what happens if people [mostly guys 😉 ] try to ‘wing it’ instead of following the manual? They will, eventually, get into trouble. They will try to do things the manual never intended to allow for, because THEY ARE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE INTENTION OF THE MANUAL.

            As it is with these examples, so it is with the government of the United States. We were founded as a Christian nation. As you conveniently pointed out it was extremely prevalent as the “custom of the day.” for people to live their lives by The Manual (God’s Word). Sodomy, theft, murder, adultery, etc., etc., etc., were all punishable crimes because of Christian influence upon the laws enacted by the people. To now try and disassociate the laws of the US from the Biblical ethic which provided their foundation is a perversion of original intent. It’s just as perverse as the behaviors some people parade around, trying to normalize the unnatural. It’s why people like John Jay stated;

            “Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

            John Jay (1745-1829) first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the men responsible for constructing the US Constitution. Source: Oct. 12, 1816, in a statement, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, America’s God and Country, William Federer,
            p.318.

          • You cannot be serious:
            That is barely more than commonsense – to choose a leader from your own people.

            (Deut 17:15)

            New International Version
            be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite.

            New Living Translation
            If this happens, be sure to select as king the man the LORD your God chooses. You must appoint a fellow Israelite; he may not be a foreigner.

            English Standard Version
            you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.

            New American Standard Bible
            you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.

            Your Ezra reference is ambiguous. So I have no idea what you point is there.

            Your response to the custom of the day is also silly.
            The Asian nations, who are largely NOT Christian, have adopted our calendar which of course counts years from the birth of Jesus Christ. That simply makes them practical.

            The ten commandments were derived from the Golden rules which have appeared in many civilizations predating Christianity and even Judaism by hundreds if not thousands of years.

            Your attempt to coopt logic and custom as a Christian construction is really fallacious.
            As you probably know also, much of the Christian doctrine and dogma was itself adopted from earlier non Christian religions – Horus was also the son of a God and a virgin.

            And of course you finally simply underline the first amendment with your attempt to suggest that John Jay adjudicated with God’s laws (note Christian was not used) – when under the Constitution he had every right to believe that – but none to use that for deliberative purposes.

          • “That is barely more than commonsense – to choose a leader from your own people.” If it is such common sense, why is it included in the document?

            “Your Ezra reference is ambiguous. So I have no idea what you point is there.” It isn’t ambiguous. It is the forbidding of attainder. You should know that.

            “Your response to the custom of the day is also silly.” OK then – prove it historically and avoid personal opinions such as this.

            “The ten commandments were derived from the Golden rules…” That’s phunny. The Ten Commandments originated from God on Mt. Sinai, given to Israel as their code of conduct. You should try reading the Word and you’ll be surprised at what you will find. The “Golden Rules” (actually “Golden RULE” is a modern term and speaks of personal actions, not corporate ones.

            “Your attempt to coopt logic and custom as a Christian construction is really fallacious.
            As you probably know also, much of the Christian doctrine and dogma was itself adopted from earlier non Christian religions – Horus was also the son of a God and a virgin.” These statements only show you don’t know history. I’ll be happy to explain if you want me to. Just ask. 🙂

            Your apparent failure to understand the moral basis of law is concerning. You should work on getting that understanding before it causes more harm.

          • “That is barely more than commonsense – to choose a leader from your own people.” If it is such common sense, why is it included in the document?

            Democracy must also have the perception of democracy. This is the best way to deflect nonsense like accusations of Birtherism.

            “Your Ezra reference is ambiguous. So I have no idea what you point is there.” It isn’t ambiguous. It is the forbidding of attainder. You should know that.

            My note was to your reference which did not exist as you wrote it. Perhaps you might like to check what you wrote.

            “Your response to the custom of the day is also silly.” OK then – prove it historically and avoid personal opinions such as this.

            “The ten commandments were derived from the Golden rules…” That’s phunny. The Ten Commandments originated from God on Mt. Sinai, given to Israel as their code of conduct. You should try reading the Word and you’ll be surprised at what you will find. The “Golden Rules” (actually “Golden RULE” is a modern term and speaks of personal actions, not corporate ones.

            I find historical accounts far more reliable than religious dogma.

            “Your attempt to coopt logic and custom as a Christian construction is really fallacious.
            As you probably know also, much of the Christian doctrine and dogma was itself adopted from earlier non Christian religions – Horus was also the son of a God and a virgin.” These statements only show you don’t know history. I’ll be happy to explain if you want me to. Just ask. 🙂

            As would I – and again – Christian dogma will never supplant historical documentation.

            Your apparent failure to understand the moral basis of law is concerning. You should work on getting that understanding before it causes more harm.

            You confuse ‘morals’ with ‘ethics’. Secular law has an ethical basis. Religious law changes with revelations. It is highly unreliable if you bother to track through the Bible and look at the religious law on family relationships. In the quest for enlightenment, nothing surpasses religion in lapsed of rational behavior.

            BTW, are you by any chance some kind of preacher ?

          • “Democracy must also have the perception of democracy. This is the best way to deflect nonsense like accusations of Birtherism.” I apologize, but I’m not sure I understand your comment. Expound a bit, please?

            “My note was to your reference which did not exist as you wrote it.” Again, not sure what you mean. My original post supplied a Scriptural basis for forbidding attainder, written into Article III, Section 3.

            “I find historical accounts far more reliable than religious dogma.” Agreed, but you haven’t provided and answer. 🙂

            Space and time forbid me to review the scope of facts dealing with this particular issue. Instead, let me ask you a question;

            Why are there so many startling similarities in far-flung ancient cultures, with similar characteristics regarding the details?

            “You confuse ‘morals’ with ‘ethics’.” With all due respect, you have it backwards. The kind of thinking you claim here allows for the legitimization of eugenics, enforcement of religious law (as in what ISIS is currently trying to enforce), and a host of other evils. Morals, however, provide the foundation of a person’s understanding of ethics. That’s why people can ‘ethically’ choose to kill people they consider inferior. This also applies if the morals used as the motivation are not substantiated by the Word of God (again, using ISIS as an example).

            ” It is highly unreliable if you bother to track through the Bible and look at the religious law on family relationships.” Please provide an example or two.

            “BTW, are you by any chance some kind of preacher?” If by that you’re asking if I am an ordained minister, the answer is no. I have some letters behind my name, that’s all. 🙂

          • “Democracy must also have the perception of democracy. This is the best way to deflect nonsense like accusations of Birtherism.” I apologize, but I’m not sure I understand your comment. Expound a bit, please?

            We have a natural born President because innate in our Constitution is the idea of a Citizen/President and not someone who owes allegiance to an existential power. Renunciation of other loyalties would never satisfy the disaffected – and in a democracy you will always have a minority – many of who feel disaffected. Birtherism was an attempt to invalidate Obama’s legitimacy – and it failed to provide acceptable evidence.

            .” Again, not sure what you mean. My original post supplied a Scriptural basis for forbidding attainder, written into Article III, Section 3.

            My note was to your reference which did not exist as you wrote it : there is no reference to Ezra 18:20. Please check your reference if you have a point to make there.

            “I find historical accounts far more reliable than religious dogma.” Agreed, but you haven’t provided and answer. 🙂

            The Holy Trinity, the Wise men, and even the reincarnation of Jesus Christ are all either based upon mythology, or in the case of the rising of JC on the 3rd day, the account of one person who quite understandably would have been in a state of shock after the horrendous event of the previous week.
            I do not question them as article of Faith, but object strenuously to them being presented as some kind of historical fact.

            Space and time forbid me to review the scope of facts dealing with this particular issue. Instead, let me ask you a question;
            Why are there so many startling similarities in far-flung ancient cultures, with similar characteristics regarding the details?

            The virgin birth was a powerful story. It was accepted by a population that believed deeply in a life after death – which the Egyptians accepted as a pivotal part of their mortal existence. These accounts became a part of Christian theology generations after the death of Jesus Christ
            You may find some fascinating parallels in this reference here as reagrding these artidles of faith. http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm
            “You confuse ‘morals’ with ‘ethics’.” With all due respect, you have it backwards. The kind of thinking you claim here allows for the legitimization of eugenics, enforcement of religious law (as in what ISIS is currently trying to enforce), and a host of other evils. Morals, however, provide the foundation of a person’s understanding of ethics. That’s why people can ‘ethically’ choose to kill people they consider inferior. This also applies if the morals used as the motivation are not substantiated by the Word of God (again, using ISIS as an example).

            ” It is highly unreliable if you bother to track through the Bible and look at the religious law on family relationships.” Please provide an example or two.

            “I find historical accounts far more reliable than religious dogma.” Agreed, but you haven’t provided and answer. 🙂

            Space and time forbid me to review the scope of facts dealing with this particular issue. Instead, let me ask you a question;

            Why are there so many startling similarities in far-flung ancient cultures, with similar characteristics regarding the details?

            Some fascinating information here for you on this:
            http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

            “You confuse ‘morals’ with ‘ethics’.” With all due respect, you have it backwards. The kind of thinking you claim here allows for the legitimization of eugenics, enforcement of religious law (as in what ISIS is currently trying to enforce), and a host of other evils. Morals, however, provide the foundation of a person’s understanding of ethics. That’s why people can ‘ethically’ choose to kill people they consider inferior. This also applies if the morals used as the motivation are not substantiated by the Word of God (again, using ISIS as an example).

            I find this the most interesting part of your entire post. As I categorically disagree. Morals in fact have fashions. They are in flux all through human history. Ethics, however, do not. They are based upon mathematical rules and can be found in many theorems regarding Games Theory.

            ” It is highly unreliable if you bother to track through the Bible and look at the religious law on family relationships.” Please provide an example or two.

            The Book of Leviticus. for a start.

            10. God deems it good to punish Babylon by smashing her infant children to bits on the street, so right off the rod we know that the slaughter of children cannot be a priori an evil thing in Biblical morality. (Isaiah 13:16)
            9. Jesus himself will cause your family and your household to be torn apart, so now we also know that it can’t be a priori an evil thing to ruin families in Biblical morality. (Luke 21:16)
            8. The sexual enslavement of thousands of children (32,000, to be exact) is OK, as long as God has already told you to murder their families, so we also know that neither genocide or the sexual torture of children is a priori an evil deed in Biblical morality. (Numbers 31:17-18)
            7. If you mock or disobey your parents, the birds-of-prey will devour your eyes right out of your head, so the disfigurement of your own children also cannot be a sin. (Proverbs 30:17)
            6. If a ruthless dictator doesn’t manumit his slaves at the request of a single random soothsayer, the morally good response is to murder the children of everyone in thenation, even if they have never even heard of Moses or his god, so for the Bible moralist it is morally good to punish people for deeds in which they took no part. (Exodus 12:29)
            5. A superficial (read: literal) reading of the story of the binding of Isaac makes it clear that your moral duty to obey a pernicious command from above far outweighs any love you might have for your own offspring. In Bible ethics, then, standing up for your own bloodline is not a priori a morally good action. (Genesis 22:2-13)
            4. If children make fun of your bald head, the appropriate response is to have themmassacred by bears. This way, we know that in Biblical morality, punishments need no proportion to the crimes. (2nd Kings 2:23)
            3. If you don’t hate your mom, your dad, your siblings, your children, and yourself,Jesus is wrong for you. So in Biblical morality, a cohesive family unit is a moral aberration. (Luke 14:26)
            2. If a child is disobedient and doesn’t listen to his parents, have the entire town get together and execute him The Lottery-style. There is no exception made here for “19 month old babies who don’t say AMEN.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
            1. And of course the most famous father-son relationship in the Bible is God’s own: God loves us so much that he would torture and murder his own son to save us from God’s own wrath.
            So, we have learned (1) that the murder, torture, rape, disfigurement, and ritual execution of children is morally permissible in certain cases, (2) the very existence of a loving family structure is morally impermissible, and (3) and annihilation of entire cultures is OK so long as the young children are spared to fulfill the victors’ sexual lust. All this is the case, unless either God is not good, or God is not the author of the Bible.
            We are very fortunate indeed, then, that virtually all so-called “Biblical literalists” are either unaware of or too morally good to follow the commands to slaughter and torture written about in the Bible. While I have a great deal to say on this question, particular on the pertinence of these arguments to the Euthyphro Dilemma, I feel the point has been made so I will let it rest.

          • I apologize for the delayed response. I will answer this post in two parts;

            10. God moves through human agency upon Earth. The fact that these things happened were foretold to the Babylonians – not that God Himself would do these things. There are myriad other examples of this in Scripture.

            9. Review Point 10 above. Jesus does not cause this, He is simply letting His disciples know that the world will reject them – just as it rejected Him (John 15:18-25).

            8. Specific events for specific reasons are not to be considered general counsel to those who follow God. The actions of Israel when taking the Promised Land were not mentioned (or condoned by God) after that time. I’ll offer more explanation if you need me to.

            7. A couple things about this one; The mockers are not listed as children, so please refrain from adding to – or retracting from – the meaning. Also, the meaning is used as a way of warning against rebellion against authority and should not necessarily be taken literally. Besides that, there is no mention that God will do these things, or that He commands parents to do these things to their children. Please try to keep things in context.

            6. WOW, you really have to misunderstand – or omit – a significant amount of historical understanding to foul this one up so badly. The plagues God used to judge Egypt were directed at the false gods the Egyptians (and summarily, everyone under their control) worshipped. To state that they “never heard of Moses” is intellectual ignorance or laziness, or outright rejecting the full evidence of what happened. That’s a shame.

            5. I guess you missed the part where Abraham voiced his faith in God to resurrect his son Isaac, even before they set out on the journey?

            4. The reference is to what happened to those who rebelled against the prophet Elisha, and can be found in 2 Kings 2:19-24. The prophet had just performed a miracle which attested to his anointing coming from God after his mentor Elijah had been taken up. He was now the de facto representative prophet of God to Israel, and to prove it he had performed the miracle of cleansing the water source of the town. The hooligans who disrespected him – in essence – claimed he was a false prophet. They found out otherwise. BTW, they were not “children.”

            3. The message of the text is that Jesus lets us know that if you prefer following your friends, family, culture (or anyone/anything else for that matter) more than you prefer following Him, you aren’t worthy to be called His disciple (Matthew 10:37-39). It was true then and it’s true today, simply because truth is enduring.

            2. You might want to actually READ the text before quoting some moron who publishes crap on the internet. The passage doesn’t relate to “children.” It doesn’t apply to females. It doesn’t have “the entire town” getting involved, and there is no “Lottery Style” action directed. Seriously – where do you get this stuff? Apparently you’ve been subjected to multiple versions of “The Lottery” and can’t separate fact from fiction. That is concerning.

            1. The fact you can’t understand the reality of the working of God in the death and resurrection of Christ is, unfortunately, all to expected. Books have been written describing the motives, reasons and methods of this event, which is the greatest act of love the world has, or ever will, hear of. I am concerned that your disdain for seeking truth is more from a desire to resist it, rather than simple ignorance.

            I sincerely hope I am wrong.

          • It may be my problem in responding too tersely to your point.
            I am merely trying to point out that gospel is not an historical account. It is a blend of events, beliefs, religious interpretations and philosophy. I categorized it with dogma – perhaps unfairly – because dogma can have negative implications.

            Now I have said before, and shall say again. I take no issue with religious beliefs. They give comfort to many and serve to explain what is really unexplainable. But they are not historical accounts although they may refer to real history from time to time.

            Personally – I have no need of that kind of intercessory religion – particularly because the most fundamental message contained in all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is that you have a direct link to God with absolutely no need for any intermediary

          • Thanks for the clarification. 🙂

            A couple points, though.

            The first is that the gospels actually DO contain historical accounts regarding statements, events, personas, etc. They were relayed to others through the sharing of that information via word and written page (like the report of an accident a police officer would take down).

            The second is that all three of the faith systems you mention use intermediaries. With Judaism it is the prophet and priest which act as such. With Islam it is the imam which acts as such. However, both Judaism and Islam (definitely not the same) use human intermediaries, while Christianity (at least the kind Jesus refers to) has the Spirit of God operating as such (John 16:12-15; 1 John 2:26-27).

            That’s as different as night and day.

          • Yes, I acknowledged reference to historical events – however the chronology of them and even the reporting of them is not either accurate or objective, and there is enormous blurring of events and dates of them. My observation of the intercessory aspect of Abrahamic religions refers to the fundamental relationship between God and Man. My point was that in all three religions (with a handful of rather small non orthodox breakaways) each religion is an artifice that has placed an intercessory between this relationship. They all play lip service to the spiritual invective – the Jews and Muslims use the word ‘teacher’ where Christians use priests to manage the religious structure and prevent straying from the theology. And therein is the corruption of the covenant between God and Man. Both Muslims and Christians have a very strong evangelistic component – which has been the catalyst for bloody confrontation and endless wars over property and power. The Jews avoided this by believing that they were special humans and endowed with a special leadership purpose and are still waiting for their Messiah. The Muslims have had their only Messiah, and the Christians are waiting for him to return.

            The point you make about the Christian spirit of God endowed on each and every one of us is a good theological point and has led to a mushrooming of often very poorly educated small offshoots of fundamentalism Christian sects – and almost always led by an omnipresent charismatic leader who does all the thinking for his congregation.

            In all cases – I have rejected these artifices because while many of them serve a beneficial purpose for their congregations – the sum of religious activity even over the last 2,000 years is an appalling history of cruelty, and bloodshed.

          • You’ll have to provide specific examples of why you think the Bible contains historical errors, instead of broad statements such as “…the chronology of them and even the reporting of them is not either accurate or objective, and there is enormous blurring of events and dates…” What you claim (in the broad sense of meaning) is untrue.

            The Spirit of God is not “…endowed on each and every one of us…” because He only indwells those who are Born Again. I state this simply because that is what is written. 🙂

            “..the sum of religious activity even over the last 2,000 years is an appalling history of cruelty, and bloodshed.” – Agreed, which is why God hates religion so much.

          • “We have a natural born President because innate in our Constitution is the idea of a Citizen/President and not someone who owes allegiance to an existential power.” – While the percentage of natural-borne populace is unknown (at least to me), your response is questionable. I understand your point, but not sure I agree with the rationalization.

            “My note was to your reference which did not exist as you wrote it : there is no reference to Ezra 18:20. Please check your reference if you have a point to make there.” – The point, I believe, was stated. Did you miss it? Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough – it deals with the matter of attainder.

            “The Holy Trinity, the Wise men, and even the reincarnation of Jesus Christ are all either based upon mythology, or in the case of the rising of JC on the 3rd day, the account of one person who quite understandably would have been in a state of shock after the horrendous event of the previous week. I do not question them as article of Faith, but object strenuously to them being presented as some kind of historical fact.” – Some of what you state is a matter of church teaching, while the facts of the Person, life, death and resurrection of Christ are historical facts. Perhaps you are unaware of the body of evidence supporting these things?

            “The virgin birth was a powerful story. It was accepted by a population that believed deeply in a life after death – which the Egyptians accepted as a pivotal part of their mortal existence. These accounts became a part of Christian theology generations after the death of Jesus Christ.” – Life after death has been a near-universal belief among all major civilizations up until fairly recently. There are many reasons why this is so, and I’ll enumerate them for you if you want me to. However, the resurrection of Christ was attributed by the very people who testified to His rising from the dead (all mythical restructuring of historical facts such as the site your reference being put aside). It seems you have been misled regarding this aspect of history.

            “Morals in fact have fashions. They are in flux all through human history. Ethics, however, do not. They are based upon mathematical rules and can be found in many theorems regarding Games Theory.” – “Games Theory.” I’m sorry, but that just sounds phunny to me. And, actually, you just made my point for me (please refer to the latter part of the post associated with your comment).

          • ‘and Ezra 18:20/ ‘ your words I believe.

            We know that no one saw Christ rise from the dead because St. Mark tells us the he appeared first to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9), but we know that the Magdalene did not see the Resurrection for, when she arrived at the tomb, Christ had already risen from the dead. Therefore, if Mary did not see Christ rise, neither did any other. The Catechism puts it thus: “No one was an eyewitness to Christ’s Resurrection and no evangelist describes it.”.

            So there were no witnesses to the resurrection, and only one who could testify that it must have occurred.

            You must understand that law is based upon ethics, not morals. Ethics have mathematical symmetry, but morals are based much more upon cultural practices. That confusion has caused a lot of very bad laws to be passed – most of which eventually get removed over time.

          • Believe it or not I am with you on most of your post here – with one major exception which first comes to mind. While it’s true that nobody witnessed the actual event of His resurrection, hundreds of people testified – to the point of death – that they had physically encountered the Risen One.

            That testimony is valid for everyone who believes, from that day to this. Wanna be one of those people who encounters the Risen Christ? I would be honored to help you with that. 🙂

          • I am a spiritual person. I acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ. I do not want to participate any more in the artifice of religion that was created as a result of his mission. I believe that it is fundamentally flawed. I was confirmed as an episcopalian and can receive the communion and received many years of religious instruction even to the doctrinal distinctions on the issues of transubstantiation, consubstantiation and remembrance which are all doctrinal representations of the last supper. I believe that the Synod of Nicea where the bible was edited and the basic marketing of Christian beliefs was formalized, removed one of the most important documents of all – the Book of Judas. It throws an entirely different light on the crucifixion, one which contradicts the premise that is taught. I believe that life is everlasting, that your ego does not survive death and that heaven and hell are devices that the religions devised to manipulate their followers. But I do not ant to go out on a tangent here as my understanding of infinity and everlasting life is probably very complex and rejects everything taught by the three Abrahamic religions.

          • There are many people who “…acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ.” No offence, but that – in and of itself – does no one any good. After all, even the demons believe in God (James 2:19-20).

            It is an unfortunate fact that many modern ‘Christian’ denominations have devolved into simple religions, and have little to do with the power of the resurrection. It’s no wonder then that so many who have been exposed to them turn away from ‘the faith’ they were once taught. Sadly, you give all the indications of being yet another victim.

            The Nicaean Council was first established to help weed out certain – and limited – heretical (false) teaching regarding the Person of Christ. They also helped to codify certain tenants of the Christian faith. In those respects then yes, they “edited” the Bible.

            The BOOK OF JUDAS? That travesty is a fabrication designed to beguile the unwary, unwise and uneducated. Employing that type of deceptive tactic is almost as old as it’s originator, Lucifer. Here is a link to a brief, and well documented, article which may help enlighten you;

            https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1266-is-the-gospel-of-judas-true

          • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            Article VI, third paragraph ,

            The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

          • I missed something (probably because it’s late and I have to go to work soon – but I wanted to answer you promptly).
            What’s your point?

          • The most explicit statement regarding the use of religion in the context of the government of the USA. ‘no law respecting an establishment of religion’ means exactly that – there may not be ANY law that stands on the efficacy of a religious law – which implies that it may have ONLY a solid secular reason to justify its validity.

          • It’s fascinating to see you perform such mental gymnastics. It’s also convenient that you pick and choose which parts of the documents you want to include in your reasoning. What about the “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” that you keep avoiding?

          • I have no problem with free exercise of religion – providing that it does not circumvent or violate any other law. As such – it is wise to worship in private – obeying all the mandates of the age of consent, rules of marriage and so on – that are required. So you see that even religion must be subservient to secular law where it intrudes on the free will of others.

          • What if ‘the law’ provides for slave ownership?

          • I personally find slavery wrong. But took time through a democratic system to abolish it. As Churchill said, democracy is a terrible form of government, but it is better than any other that we know of.

          • You should read what the Founding Fathers thought of ‘democracy.”

          • We reject your ‘reasoning’ because it is unreasonable.

          • Your first amendment right is noted, but will fail as you must be aware from the polling and support that you do NOT have in our system.

          • The precepts mentioned in the 1st are interconnected, sir (or is it ma’am?). To get rid of one means you must get rid of them all. Is that what you’re advocating?

          • My comment was a wry observation of your postulation ‘We reject your ‘reasoning’ because it is unreasonable’. In other words who cares if you think it is unreasonable – a legal majority disagrees with you. Of course – nothing can preclude you from trying to have your way – indefinitely. That is your first amendment right.

          • Interesting reply.

            A ‘legal majority’ in nearly every state in the union disagreed with the normalization of homosexual “marriages,” and went so far as to codify that disagreement with actual laws and amendments to state constitutions specifying what was to be considered a true marriage. That is, until activist judges illegally overturned duly enacted laws.

            You ought to be careful invoking that whole “popularity” thing. It may come back to bite you.

          • I do not see evidence of any attempt by those that agree with you to prove that. Until that happens, the judiciary will rule according to the logic that declared DOMA illegal.
            Of course you can try to put referendums on the next 2016 elections to force a constitutional change – but you are just in denial because you probably know that that would certainly fail according to the polling done on the issue which is overwhelmingly ambivalent about gay marriage,.

          • “I do not see evidence of any attempt by those that agree with you to prove that.” No doubt. Then again, you usually have to look to find something. Your refusal to acknowledge state laws and constitutions is amazing.

            “Of course you can try to put referendums on the next 2016 elections to force a constitutional change – but you are just in denial because you probably know that that would certainly fail according to the polling done on the issue which is overwhelmingly ambivalent about gay marriage.” The legal definition of what constitutes marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. Most states have already decided this question by amending their constitutions. Activist judges arbitrarily overturned lawfully enacted state constitutions.

          • We could deflect into a discussion of the supremacy of Federal law, and if you are really interested there are several lectures on CSpan that will demonstrate that State Laws and Constitutions effectively are always subjugated to Federal law although that may not appear to be obvious superficially. In particular you should investigate the ability to secede – the apex of such arguments – it is extremely unlikely that that could ever occur in the USA – legally.

          • Federal law supersedes state law when it is constitutionally appropriate to do so. If the subject under question is a state matter, then federal authority is illegal. Why do you think the Founding Fathers had such a debate over Federalist-Antifederalist issues? THIS is exactly why the Bill of Rights, and other considerations were put into place. They wanted to prevent an over-reaching and intrusive federal system

          • I am going to resist the temptation to be drawn into this tangent – because it is very complex. I shall see if I can find a well constructed opinion on it and will send it to you if I do. But the general scholarly opinion is that States rights are largely an historical decoration and that in any significant disagreement the Federal government will always win. However, no one is about to come out up front and argue that – why throw gas on a fire for no reason at all ?

          • It is made “complex” by people who do not – or cannot – read simple English.
            Enter the lawyers….

          • I think you are referring to ‘plain English’ which is a mandate now when limiting the rights of a publicly offered service – such as the real liability you will incur when you borrow money from a bank, or default on a credit card.

            Unfortunately the Constitution is the product of much negotiation and compromise, and as such it does not define many of the terms it uses – but depends on what academia accepted as those terms 200 years ago. And so we have the first and second branches of Constitutional law which are respectively Originalists, and Reconstructionists. And even if one applies this theory of constitutional interpretation it often falls short of an unequivocable meaning – because you see ethical versus moral dilemmas (slavery for example), individual rights (the female vote enfranchisement for example) and many other dilemmas which are less apparent.

          • Yes, sir – exactly so. Which is why most of the Founders of our republic made statements such as this;

            “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

            http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnadams391045.html#GlpO1A1tkjhvZdsd.99

          • What government does not fool itself into thinking that it has a moral mission. Which is not to deny the brilliance of our Founders – but it acknowledges the imperfections of any man made structure.

          • Agreed, if for no other reason that EVERY “man-made structure” is inherently imperfect. However, governmental authority is sanctioned by God, and since the FFs knew this they relied upon the Christian influence of the populace to maintain the republic they help to establish. They understood only too well that government is only as good as the people involved in it;

            “The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.” – Noah Webster

          • We could go on ad nauseum – discussing in the tiniest detail the origins of Christianity.
            When all is said and done, it is a set of beliefs that we simply do not share.
            I see the under belly of all the Abrahamic religions as the major problem of the miserable history of human violence. All religions including the much older variants of Buddhism have a history of violence – but none more severe than that of Christianity and Islam. Nor do I accept the blithe suggestion that the precepts of Christianity have not been followed and thus these problems have resulted. You can make that argument about every failure of a man made or engineered system. Religions tend to absolve their followers of personal responsibilities almost always to protect the institution rather than what it was purportedly designed to do – make us a more spiritual species.
            So thank you for your interest – and I wish you well.

          • God’s design was perfect. A second party, which was not God, violated the programming in a way that would have caused the whole program to go blue screen, except by God’s grace. An individual program within the whole program was given the right to choose if they would obey their programming, or not. That is the fundamental difference between God’s “program” and human written programs. Your response does show that you do not understand God’s story, which is contained within the Bible. The fundamental point that God created man as an individual agent with some of God’s attributes. God chose, we choose. God is self aware, we are self-aware. He could have created everything to go perfectly according to His program, but then we would be no different then apes, with no real ability to be self aware, or choose.

          • Your failure to explain why freedom of choice (and a very loaded freedom) is a valuable thing in the religious sense. It is probably more indictment of the use of humans as a sick kind of game if we could ever establish the existence of this being. I have endeavored to point out that it is not real freedom at all – if you make the wrong choice the scriptures suggest that you will spend an eternity of damnation.

          • We have been created in God’s image. We are the only thing in God’s physical creation that can say that. We have that because God wants to have a relationship with us that nothing else is capable of. That is the significance of choice. The Bible does not say you will spend eternity in hell for sinning. It says you will spend an eternity in hell for not relying on God for fixing the problem that we cannot fix in our own efforts.

            Read this short chunk of scripture. It sums it up well.

            Romans 3

            23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God freely and graciously declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.

            27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

          • Again you muddy up the theology behind Romans which Paul wrote with the aid of scribes, because of bad eyesight.

            God’s righteousness is being revealed in this gospel from faith to faith (1:17). The only way this righteousness may be accessed is through faith. Sola Fide-it is by faith alone. Man can never make himself righteous, nor will a single ounce of merit do anything in regards to salvation (Eph 2:8, 9). Paul adds to this and says that the one who is righteous by faith shall live (1:17). And this is his gospel which he develops throughout Romans. In this letter Paul shows why it is necessary to be justified by faith. Because of man’s sin, man needs to be justified, and therefore, as a result, (eternal) life will come. Matthew Black rendered it as follows: “‘The just-by-faith (in Christ) shall live (now and for ever)’-and the words, of course, mean enjoy fullness of life, now and fore ever.” [11] It has an eternal consequence-everlasting life: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (6:23).

            It was an attempt to consolidate the many sects that had sprung up all claiming the legacy of Jesus Christ. At that time there was not New Testament. There were many years before the council at Nicea selected the books that would and would not be a part of the Christian bible.

          • YES HE DOES!!!!! He destroyed two cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) because they were overrun by fag’s. If that isn’ a stance I don’t know what is.

          • Also God didn’t create gay’s. he gave people the right to freewill and then you used your freewill to put a cock in your mouth.

          • So its free will – whatever. Get over it – Gays are using the right of God given freedom to choose.

          • He gave everyone the right to free will, but if you choose to murder , rape or anything else that is against god. It doesn’t make it alright because god gave you that right to choose. We will all answer for the choices we made that are against god. I don’t hate gays as people I hate the lifestyle they choose. I also hate that people that don’t agree with that way are life are forced to agree with it, like it or not. If you don’t your treated like there is something wrong with you because I don’t agree with two men or two chicks kissing and having sex. I’m not going to set and watch TV with my sons and a preview comes on and there is to guys making out and tell my sons that its OK to be that way, or that it is normal.

          • That therefore, is the business of God. Not you.

          • Yes your judgment is up to GOD but my responsibility is teach my children right from wrong and being a homo is not right. I’m not going to be demonized by all of the people like you who do except that way of life as normal. There is not one thing normal about it. You are probably one of those who want to Christ out of Christmas.

          • So, you think you have the right to deputize for God ?
            Oh, Christmas was originally a pagan ceremony; it has NOTHING to do with Christianity. It is merely symbolic.

          • So is that a YES ? You believe that Christ should be taken out of Christmas? And to answer your other question No but I do have a moral responsibility to my children to teach right from wrong, Moral from immoral. I can’t think of way, shape, or form that being a fag is moral.

          • This is the type of normal people you support

            Yet another high profile “gay” activist has been arrested for homosexual assault on a child. This time authorities caught one of the big fish (a rainbow trout?): Terrence Patrick Bean founded the “Human Rights Campaign” (HRC), which is one of the world’s largest, wealthiest and most powerful anti-Christian organizations. HRC was developed for the sole purpose of pushing the extremist homosexual political agenda. Bean is also a major player for the DNC and a big Obama supporter.

            The Oregonian reports:

            Detectives from the Portland police Sex Crimes Unit arrested Portland developer Terrence Patrick Bean on Wednesday on a Lane County indictment stemming from alleged sex abuse involving a teenage boy in 2013.

            Bean, 66, a prominent gay rights activist and major Democratic Party fundraiser, was arrested at his home in Southwest Portland and booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center at 10:12 a.m.

            The indictment charges Bean with two counts of third-degree sodomy, a felony, and one count of third-degree sex abuse, a misdemeanor, police said.

            Bean, who bailed out of jail by late Wednesday afternoon, will be arraigned on the indictment in Lane County. …

            The alleged incident involved a sexual encounter in Eugene with a 15-year-old boy. …

            Bean has been one of the state’s biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in gay rights circles in the state. He helped found two major national political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama. He’s also a close friend of former Gov. Barbara Roberts. …

            Bean’s Flickr account shows him talking with Obama at several events, posing with first lady Michelle Obama and numerous other political figures, including former President Bill Clinton. A blog post from his sister, Sue Surdam Bean, detailed her brother’s work on a July 24, 2012 Obama fundraiser in Portland. She included three photos of Terry Bean’s ride on Air Force One with Obama to a subsequent event in Seattle.

            Just two years ago 68 year old Harry Brinkin, another high profile and similarly respected (at least among Democrats) homosexual activist, was arrested in San Francisco for possessing and distributing reams of child pornography.

            CNS News Reported at the time:

            Police said that Brinkin, a former city employee, apparently had photos of children, as young as 1- or 2-years-old, performing sexual acts and being sodomized by adult men in attachments linked to the email address, reported The Chronicle. The email account was also linked to Yahoo discussion groups involving sexual exploitation of young people.

            Concerning Brinkin, Theresa Sparks, director of the Human Rights Commission, told the Huffington Post, “It’s almost incredulous, there’s no way I could believe such a thing.”

            “He’s always been one of my heroes, and he’s the epitome of human rights activist,” she said. “This is [the] man who coined phrases we use in our daily language. I support Larry 100 percent; hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.”

            Brinkin later plead guilty to the charges.

            Yep – These monsters are “heroes” to the HRC and the larger “gay” activist community.

            Ever wonder why?

            The cases of Bean and Brinkin follow a long-established pattern as old as the ancient Greek bathhouse. Of course, not every “gay” man – self-identified or otherwise – is a pedophile, but studies indicate demonstrably that homosexual assaults against boys occur at an alarmingly disproportionate rate when compared to heterosexual assaults. The very act of a man molesting a boy unquestionably involves both same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior (a “gay” by any other name…).

            Consider, for instance, a study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, of over 200 convicted pedophiles. It found that “86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” This demonstrates, as noted by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that “homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.”

            But don’t repeat these facts out loud or you might find yourself on the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate group” smear list.

          • Yes – I agree. There a perverted homosexuals as well as perverted heterosexuals. So what is your point ?

          • Most scholars believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were myths and never existed. There is zero evidence either in artifacts or manuscripts that they ever were real.

      • Nothing. What God has to do with is lending one’s God-given talent to the celebration of a sin He abhors, in violation of His commands. The talent was given to use to His glory only!

        • It is a bit of a stretch to describe a wedding cake as the celebration of a sin – since that has no meaning in the secular world. And I am sure God has better things to worry about than that.

          • Every artist, regardlessthe medium he uses, puts some of himself into his creation. Since ALL talents are God-given, whether the recipient believes that or not being immaterial, all are intended to be used to the glory of God, not to glorify sin. Those who know that cannot knowingly provide some creation from their talent to glorify that which God long since labeled as sin, because to do so is for them to also sin! We, as followers, are commanded to give glory only to God, and shun sin, ergo, they cannot make such cakes to celebrate sin. What you believe is of no consequence in the discussion; only what God and His child believe matters here.

          • I suspect that God is perfectly capable of dishing out consequence for those who would make wedding cakes for gay couples – without any need for you to worry about it.

          • He is, and without doubt, SHALL do so! Such consequences are well defined in His Word. I don’t “worry” about it. I suppose you would just stand by and watch someone die, without making any effort to save that person, however, from the attitude you present.

          • The consequences of your behavior – good or bad – are direct alright – there is a saying that if you live by the sword, so shall you die. It is of little consequence whether or not you have been a sinner. The insistence of the faithful, that there is a divine consequence to behavior is totally whimsical – has no proof nor consistency.

    • They can’t force you to do that. You may wind up in prison for refusing to yield (not a first in the history of Christianity), but no man can force another to do anything; it’s always a choice.

  22. How much longer can we survive this President, this Congress and the Courts? They must all be in league because no single governmental entity alone could unravel the very fabric of our Country independently.
    Our Country has been turned upside down since Obama illegally took office. The opinions of minorities take precedence over the majority, the laws of the land are either enforced or not depending upon the whims of the few in power, the Government has abandoned our National Religion upon which America was founded in favor of atheists or any religion but Christianity. All of these things and more have already happened in just six short years and Obama has two more years left to finish the job of the total destruction of TRADITIONAL AMERICA !!!
    By cow-towing to the Marxist ploy of “Political Correctness”, i.e., by not saying anything to oppose Obama or his anti-American policies these Marxists and Congressional cowards we have allowed this ‘take over’ to happen!.
    Next step……they need to take our guns people! It’s been estimated that there are 270 million guns in 89% of all American households……I have a feeling that our 2nd amendment right will not be relinquished by the American people without a fight, I know for a fact that they definitely will not take my guns how about you?

  23. They know there are lots of bakeries in every town. They do this deliberately. They make us hate them. We are forced to suck it up and it is only a one-way street. They couldn’t find another bakery but honed in on this one who is christian. Shame on all of them for doing this crap. We are sick and tired of being force fed something we don’t believe in. Who says they were getting married? How do we know they are just out looking for christians to martyr over our belief. I don’t see us force feeding them! Tired of them and their stupid ways!!!

  24. How do we know they were getting married? How do we know they weren’t just out looking for another target? They make us want to hate them. The shove their style of living down our throats and we’re supposed to like. Yet, we are not permitted to shove our style down their throats and make them like it.

  25. monitors keep deleting my truth.

  26. monitors, you know this is the truth. You are paid to make sure the truth doesn’t get out. Homeland Security employees, right? How do we know they were getting married? How do we know they weren’t just out looking for another target? They make us want to hate them. The shove their style of living down our throats and we’re supposed to like. Yet, we are not permitted to shove our style down their throats and make them like it.

  27. Monitors, you promote lies!!!

  28. This seems to be all ABOUT BEING GAY AND SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS, PERIOD! I would think that most of the gays in this country ARE Christian so why would they sue a Christian bakery—awww–it’s not about the cake now is it folks–it’s about NOT GETTING THEIR WAY—JUST LIKE THE POTUS THROWS A FIT WHEN HE DOESN’T GET HIS WAY–SEE AND SIMULARITY HERE?!? NAW 🙂 🙂 !!

  29. If the judge fines this bakery in Oregon too much then “WE THE PEOPLE” OUGHT TO RAISE THE FUNDS TO PAY THE FINE SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS! Then work to get that judge off of the bench!!!

    • Good luck with that ! As it is the bulk of right wing campaigning is paid for by Sheldon Adelson and Koch Industries.

      • Morton—go f off–you’re nothing but a stupid troll!

        • Wouldn’t it just be easier for them to stop worrying about who their clients are ? After all it is very nosey.

          • As has been noted, they knew who there clients were and had served homosexual people all the time, they just chose to not produce a cake for an event that violates their religious beliefs. Stick to the facts in your arguments, otherwise your argument just sounds stupid, because it tries to distort reality, a common thing I have noticed within your posts.

          • Trevor, the only thing that is holy about your reasoning is the enormous logical holes in your argument.

          • What logical holes? Oh yeah, all the ones you have not responded to because you had no response to the reality, history, and truth that was presented. Like usual jumping off to another topic because you have no real defense for your claim which I exposed.

  30. I swear all these damb gays and lesbians have better rights then regular people anymore,, whats next.

    • You have exactly the same rights as them …..

      • No, the LGBT community is trying to establish themselves as a protected class with more rights then non-LGBT. The lies you hear, are not true. That is why it is called a lie. Like men being able to go into a woman’s locker room, because they view themselves as a woman. A completely subjective idea, that any man could claim to be a perve. The question comes down to who has the final say of what is right and wrong? How long before pedophiles are allowed to marry children? If there is no standard for absolutes, then everything is relative and nothing is off-limits, it is dependent on the culture, and has no foundation. If Muslims gain control of America and implement Sharia law , then it will be alright to physically abuse your wife. Along with numerous other things that we currently old as immoral/illegal.

        • I repeat. You have the same rights as them. You seem confused, what rights did you think they had they you did not ?

          • The right to not allow pervs into womens locker rooms. The girls in those locker rooms have the right to privacy from people of the opposite sex. Even if a man views himself as a women, the women views him as a man. Your “right” is not allowed to violate other’s. The right to be catered to because of their sexuality. The protection to dress however they want in the business field. If I cannot refuse service to a transvestite who is coming into my family restaurant wearing a black leather leotard. That is what a protected class looks like. That idea is what is happening, and has been happening.

          • Transvestites and cross dressers do not have the rights of a transgendered person, who has legally become the opposite gender than he/sh was born with.

          • The transvestite may be transgender. And the law is not regarding what surgery has been performed, rather the idea the person holds.

          • I think you need to do more study on the terms you use. Transvestites are not necessarily homosexual – and transgenders rarely are. I have no problem with transvestites or transgenders using the toilets of the gender they identify with. Cross Dressers usually have two identities and the female side is usually for a specific occasion. These days most toilets have a separate handicapped room which could be used by people that make you feel uncomfortable. But the idea that a male predator might dress as a woman in order to get into a women’s bathroom is hardly worth the time to discuss it. If that is what they want to do – no law is going to make a scrap of difference to their criminal intent. And unlike make toilets, a woman normally does her business in a private stall which she can lock.

          • No I know my terms. You do not have to dress like the opposite sex to say that I am a women, when in fact they are a man. A man dressed like a man, by that law, can go into a women’s locker room and just sit there, because they say they identify them self as a women. Note: women’s locker room, often a public shower. There is no criminal activity, if they do not touch the women, and there is a law allowing them to be there. Is that detailed enough. And I did not connect the transvestite to going into the opposite sex bathroom. I connected them to coming into my restaurant that caters to family in a outfit that is not suitable, but because they are now protected by sexual civil rights, I cannot refuse service to them. Hence, a protected class of citizens.

          • You too can dress like a woman and demand service in a publicly licensed commercial establishment. That is the test of equal rights.

          • Equal rights is not getting to do what the other person is allowed to do, it is about your rights not infringing on my rights. Fundamental concept of the Constitution. If that is not understood, you cannot understand anything else regarding the Constitution, or American Law.

  31. A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason…period. If you don’t like it then be free to take your business elsewhere. Morality is what sets us apart from animals…right is right, wrong is wrong…there is nothing right about the social disease we call homosexuality…period! If you want to live that way then so be it…but you have no right to tell me I have to be ok with it. We (the moral majority in America) need to stand up and be counted while we still have the arms to do so. Enough is enough!

    • How would you feel if all the air transport carriers within 100 miles of you, refused to carry members of your religion?

      • My statement still stands…free enterprise means freedom to hire whom I wish and freedom to run that business as I please!

        • Think about it for a while. It would tilt advantages to those with money eventually with such a slant that it would actually create poverty as those whose morals were different from the mainstream would become more and more ignored, and poorer with every rejection.

          • Free enterprise is supposed to be free…it isn’t perfect but it works better than socialism. The immoral have already created your scenario in this country. God loves the sinner yet despises the sin… Through Jesus Christ alone comes salvation. Eternity is a long time and life on this earth, in this body, is not even a blip on the radar, yet it sets the stage for what is to come. Think about that for a while. Homosexuality is a cancerous disease that leads to an eternity in Hell, unless you repent. Nuff said!

          • I have a far better narrative than that – mine also believes in eternity, but not in an imaginary God.

          • If you are right then we are all in trouble…if I am right then a few still have hope! Time will tell…in the mean time enjoy all you can because it is all the reward you get! Tick…tick…tick…

          • No, my view does not get bogged down in the imperfections of a solitary human life. However, if you use your life well you will have a far more satisfying ride on you next shot. What is a good use of one’s life ? Well that is big question – but I believe that it is something to do with how many other lives you intersect with, and how harmonious those connections really are.

          • Talk about believing in magic. Wow
            Everything coming from nothing, yet somehow providing an opportunity for you to live again in some form, whatever form it is you believe in. I thank God I have history and reality on my side in this argument.

          • I know – right ! It is just an intellectual belief as it has zero impact on mortality.

          • Is that zero impact on mortality, or morality? Because it impacts both.

          • A narrative based off of a lie is a figment of your imagination to deal with the reality that you, and every other person, is answerable to the Creator of every good thing.

          • All narratives are lies if you try and insist that you know something that is not knowable – such as an afterlife. So we have a useful word called a belief, to cover those narratives.

          • Something is knowable when the God of existence has presented it within the Bible. The Bible being the inspired Word of God. He gave people the knowledge to know things they could not have known without God showing it to him.

          • Oldawg70’s point is how America prospered since they threw off the shackles of the oppressive King of England, until around 1900, when everything in America started falling apart, as we have seen over the past 100 years. Economically speaking, not necessarily culturally. Learn your history, as I have told you a couple of times before in this discussion board. Off course their were people who wanted all the money and power, but it is the governments job to protect those who have less by restricting those people that want to, in essence, be the King. Go live in a country that has the economic system you so desire and let me know how you fare after a few months.

          • American is still prospering – and its economy is still the largest on the planet – and getting larger. We have different allocation of the wealth – a lot fewer people are a great deal wealthier than they ever were. And we also have an educational issue – we are falling behind other nations.

          • We used to be the #1 nation when the government manufactured and supplied Bibles to every school for the edification of the people. Amazing how the reality of history shows the failures of this country. We were number #1 when we did not consume more then we produce, as is seen in both government debt and the debt of the people. Financial principle found numerous times inthe Old and New Teastament of the Bible. The economy has two determining factors. Production and consumption. You cannot consume more then you produce, which America has been doing for 40 – 50 years. This is a general principle as it combines manufacturing, service, and food in the production; while consumption is obvious. We consume and do not produce. We are far behind most every Asian nation in terms of technology.

          • In general I would agree with you; but I think there is actually plenty of time to fix what has been neglected. The problems are quite well understood – declining educational standards – poor distribution of the rewards of an expanding economy, stagnant middle class wages, and fundamental services being priced out of reach of the majority of citizens. A decaying infrastructure – and an economic model that is actually out of date with its dependence on cheap labor and fossil fuels.
            The problem lie in a deadlocked stalemate as to how to fix these problems. Sad when this is probably the cheapest time in 100 years to actually borrow capital and do the fixes.
            The usury laws were abolished which did not help at all – and it is only in the last 6 years that steps have been taken to limit the massive amount of credit which was the underlying reason the recession spiraled out of control.
            Still, on the bright side, the US is still the most diverse economy in the world and of course owns the global FIAT monetary system which enables it to export our debt.

          • The educational standards have been continually raised in America, and has made everything worse over the past thirty years. You know what else has occurred? The removal of prayer, Bibles, and the Ten Commandments from the schools and public square. What are these rewards you refer to and who is distributing them and who are they being distributed to? Socialism has never worked. Another historical fact. Do you understand what controls wages? Now it is the government. Who taxes business more and more, forces them to hire specific people, and pay wages that these people are not worth, but cannot be fired because they slowly complete the tasks their bosses appoint them. America is the land of opportunity and if you are unwilling to work for it, you are definitely not entitled to it. What fundamental services are prices out of reach of for the majority of citizens? The infrastructure is decaying because the government takes the money it is suppose to spend on it and send weapons to terrorists in Africa and the Middle East, as well as billions of dollars of waste. The government is also unable to efficiently use the taxes it appropriates wasting lots of money trying to spend the money as quickly as it can, so their budget does not get cut next year. The government is corrupted by the people in it and they are reaping the financial rewards for destroying the economy. Cheap labor is the foundation of every civilization. It is not suppose to be someones career, rather a starting point to move up economically because of your hard work. Fossil fuels are not a cause of our problems. It is a symptom that does not get dealt with by limiting peoples resources to invest in methods that will improve their business and society. The massive government debt occured during the last four Presidents. And Obama has only had minimal impact on that over the past two years, but it was really more of the House and Senate.

          • I am not going to answer your issues because you are fundamentally wrong in your assessment. It sounds very much like the stuff you read on Tea Party sites or hear from the likes of Ted Cruz or Huckabee. But we do seem to agree on many of the effects of issues that need to be addressed.

          • What problem that you addressed did I not respond with the facts of the failed attempts that you presented? I just presented corresponding points regarding events that occurred alongside those things. To bad I have no time to follow all of the stuff the tea party people and groups create for people to read. I investigate history, facts, and reality. These must match up or there is a flaw in any assertion. My assessment is based on those few important factors I presented two sentences ago. If you do not like facts, history, or reality, then do not try to persuade someone who uses their God given ability to logically analyze and deduce through facts what is and is not. You can choose to believe something else, but do not assert that yours is based off of intellectual components when you have no supporting evidence.

      • I would take the train, or start a company that catered to my “religion”. Your arguments are old and tired and are not supported by the American Constitution.
        Secondly, stop being overly sensitive. “HOW WOULD YOU FEEL”. Seriously get over it. Just because you do not want to feel judged, or be told that your view is a perversion, does not mean that I do not continue to have the right to say that it is.

        • Well fortunately the current interpretation of the Constitution is very clear about what religious freedom means. And it does not extend into the market place. Frankly I think the issue by the wedding cake baker is absurd. A cake is a cake – not a religious sacrament.

          • Current interpretation is not necessarily accurate. SInce current interpretation has thrown out the history behind each article and why it was established, current interpretation has no foundation beyond the evolutionary law I mentioned earlier. The constitution was not created to be interpreted, it was established to set limitations on the authorities in the land and protect people’s fundamental rights from government control, not from individual people words, or their choices on who to do business with. As long as your choices are not inflicting bodily harm, or causing severe distress. You cannot emotionally or physically abuse someone. Refusing to provide a service to someone does neither.

          • When there is a difference of opinion as to what any part of the Constitution means – the SCOTUS has a Constitutional requirement to decide what it means.

            You are not right just because you may think you are.

            While you may equivocate about what the Constitution says or does not say at any given time – the Executive and the lower courts may declare what it means, and you as a pirvate citizen, or even a State government, may then petition the SCOTUS to overrule any other authority, or plaintiff , including the Executive (the President). And unless that is done, the law is as the lower courts or the President declares it to be. So your blithe assertion that ‘Current interpretation is not necessarily accurate’ is actually dead wrong.

          • You understand the process but know nothing of history. I can know I am right because of an understanding of the Constitution, how and why it was established, and the fundamental principles contained within it. So regardless of what a liberal judge asserts, that does not make it a correct. If you violate the Constitution to do something, your conclusion is in fact illegal, even if no one contended with you when you made it. That is why the Constitution is not their for interpretation, as the evolutionary law you so desperately cling to asserts, rather that it is a rock solid foundation that can only be understood within the context of its creation and words, as well as the history of those words. You cannot take the word gay, written 200 years ago and interpret it to be speaking about a homosexual. History and facts.

          • You may not like to admit this, but you are absolutely incorrect. You may however, petition the Courts, and your political leaders to change something that you regard as morally offensive. To be successful, you usually have to present the problem in secular terms, and be careful to not cause a conf;itc with other Constitutional laws.

          • I said nothing about anything morally offensive in my post.

  32. what ever happened to our rights of the United States of America. The right to religion, to buy goods, speak of what we think, People need to read the 5th amendment on civil rights. this would take care of a lot of bickering. Gays if they don’t want to make it for you they why make them, go to another place of business who will, instead of fighting. Muslims some are good and some are not so good. Where you live you are suppose to live by that country’s law, not your own. ISIS you love to fight based on the Koran, do it on your own land, we like ours and do not want it destroyed. Immigrants for those who are here legally here in the USA, the government off needs to get off there butts and get the job done. Hire temporary help, it can be done. For those Illegal immigrants get the hell out our country you do not belong here. go home and if you want to come back do it the legal way. you are not invited. Now as for the President of the United States, an action needs to be set forth in having this individual impeached, Senators, I know you have a lot of work to do. the first on the priority list should President Obama for treason, plus a whole list of things he has done.

  33. Our stinking Government is going to kill us all.

  34. This was a foregone conclusion.

  35. Have you not heard, Old Slufoot Satan never sleeps. Shalom!

  36. if it is like that… them lets make every private business a private club,.. with its own rules like Costco. Then we can clearly put rules on buyer members and if you dont like it just dont joint the franchise. It could be a 1 dollar joint membership with a membership to sign , where you would have to agree to all its rules before joining or buying. Sad but it may be the way everything ends thanks to the leftards and the corrupt federal government we have not have the guts to change.

  37. Gay marriage was never included in the Constitution and it should have never been. The queer community using corrupt judges bent the law to include marriage in the Constitution , which is something the Constitution for all the history of our nation left to the states. And the queers did it using a call for minorities that dont apply to them ,because they are defined in the federal law as a “sexual orientation”, there is not scientific evidence neither will be of gay dna or born gay.

  38. I think you mean Christian baker found to be discriminated against and should file a federal lawsuit at their discriminators and SUE THEM TO NO END.

  39. But if we see a case where a Christian wants a gay baker to bake a cake for their Christian weeding or something of that sort and they refuse, that is OK, they can do that? That is bull shit, because that is reverse discrimination there, and I would slap them with a lawsuit also. It has already happened folks, so don’t be surprised.

  40. Another example of legal double talk. I am not a lawyer,however do not the Klein’s make up a religious organization? There are many places of business privately owned that have written warnings clearly stating they have the right to refuse service to anyone. The Klein’s have religious rights. The government seems to be saying that you have these rights at their convenience. Our system of laws are based squarely on biblical instruction .I pray there is a legal appeal to reverse this decision by this judge ; who seems to have made this decision using political correctness as his morale compass.

  41. Suggestion: Go to a muslim bakery and ask for a cake in the shape of your pet pig. Then sue them out of their gourd when they refuse.

  42. Too much government never has been a good thing. You should be able to sell your services and wares to whom ever you want. Gee, wonder what they would say if you refused to offer products and services to terrorists? Discrimination? Bullshit. Refuse to pay the fines and move your business to another state and let the left wing queers roll in their filth.

  43. This has always been very simple to me, maybe too simple.
    You have no right to demand a pig farmer sell you a cow.
    You have no right to demand a cattle rancher sell you a sheep.
    You have no right to demand a chicken farmer to sell you a turkey.
    You have no right to demand a Ford dealer sell you a new Chevy.
    You have no right to demand an Orthodox Synagogue to conduct a Christian marriage.
    You have no right to demand a Muslim Mosque conduct a Christian marriage.
    You have no right to demand a bakery to sell you a steak.
    You have no right to demand a health store to sell you mono-sodium glutemate.
    You have no right to demand a Christian store to sell you an anti-Christian product.
    Plain and simple. You have no right to demand someone to sell you something they don’t offer.
    Why the legal-eagles have never argued this point is beyond me.
    Discrimination only comes into play when the owner of a business selects WHO they sell to, not what they sell.
    In all of these cases, the bakeries being sued DID NOT refuse to sell to the patrons, they only refused to provide a product they did not offer.
    NO ONE should be forced to provide a product they do not want to provide.
    Morton212, how about me demanding you provide me with 1,000,000 dead and butchered animals?
    Your argument says I can demand that from you and that the law you tout will back me up.
    The fact that you are not offering them has nothing to do with it, in your arguments.

  44. The correct title of this article should be “Christian Bakers found guilty of seeking refuge in their Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion”. Or, Perhaps a shorter title could be “Homosexual choice trumps American Constitution”.

  45. So the sign “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” is a farce! You can refuse service to anyone UNLESS they are Gay, lesbian, transvestite, Gender neutral (what the hell is that anyways? Thought we were all born with genitals) or you are just an outright pervert, THEN you best not refuse because they are totally tolerant of others as long as they agree that being screwed up in the head is absolutely normal! I have several friends that are lesbians, they are hard working, polite, pleasant to be around. Difference is they don’t flaunt it, they don’t demand my approval, and they ask for NO special treatment. Since WHEN has it become the place of gov’t to demand that we accept what others do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Why do these people demand that we give them special treatment because they are proud to be gay? THAT should be nobody’s business, if they want to have sex with the same gender, GREAT…. Why do I have to hear about it? Why do I have to accept that. I don’t go around demanding special treatment because I am straight, nor do I talk to others about what my wife and I do in our bed. These people need to be shut down, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy should be for everyone.

  46. In NONE of the businesses targeted were homosexuals blanketly denied service; only that 1 specific event that violates the rights of the owners’ to practice THEIR religion freely. That fact keeps getting ignored in these stories. Ergo, this is not “bigotry” on the parts of those business owners, but of the homosexuals attacking them from behind the government shield! The hate being practiced is by the whiners who CLAIM falsely, they’re being regularly attacked, yet have to falsify incidents to demonstrate such attacks!

  47. Sounds suspiciously like that “judge” is queer as a three dollar bill. Just like Obama sticks up for his muzzie buddies, judges are sticking up for their queer buddies and queens. It’s either that or they are scared pee green of the queer movement.

  48. I agree with the article above. Once again the Federal government reaches into private lives where they have no business sticking their nose into. The last 4 to 5 decades the Fed’ has continued to reach further and further into our lives to gain as much control as they can grab. It leaves citizens operating in what tends to be a slave labor existence to support the government. The government is supposed to serve us. It doesn’t serve us by telling us we are to submit to any kind of deviant morality that someone wants us to be a part of. Those bakers wanted no part of serving such as a same-sex union celebration. I don’t blame them a bit. I wouldn’t want any part of it either. My lord and savior expects better than that from me. Besides they called it a same-sex “marriage”. Well that can’t be. Homosexuals can’t have marriage. The institution of marriage was designed for one woman and one man. It wasn’t designed for two men or two females. God established the institution of marriage. He didn’t include two of the same sex in that institution. Such a thing is an abomination to him. Why should we look at it other than an abomination. No………those bakers should not be asked or forced to participate in celebrating such activities. It is a matter of conscience.

  49. Well, this is what happens when you discriminate against minorities in Oregon.

  50. All uou hsve to do is hang a sign we can refuse service to anyone. Screw that damn satanic ass hole judge

  51. A horrible decision made by a complete idiot. As much as gays have a choice about their sexual preference bakers should have a choice about the types of products they produce. They are not protesting the gay’s life style they are denying baking a product they do not believe in. What if a gay ask that a giant penis or vigina cake be baked, would the baker have to product those as well? I say let them eat cake from another baker!

  52. Whatever ‘penalty’ is ordered by the judge, refuse to comply and we will have your back! Enough is enough! Time to put these SOBs in their proper place!

    My freedom does not depend on a rule of law, in fact my freedom allows me to REFUSE to comply to these absurdities that pass for laws.

  53. This President has turned the United States of America upside down. He has destroyed the greatest country on Earth. The last hope country that was left. Obama the Satanic Muslim half breed has been successful in taking America to our knees

  54. It’s past time to raise arms in defense of these Atheistic Queer, Transgendered, Dyke Society. If the Muslims had them they would all be stoned to death. This Blasphemy in Our Fathers eye will bring a swift end to these ill reputed Judges, ruling in favor of sin. They will come to a great sickness or even death for not following the Rule Of God’s Law also, “The 10 Commandments!

  55. Let’s find a muslim bakery and ask them to bake a cake for a porkfest celebration, in the shape of a pig. Then sue their knickers off when they refuse.

  56. If these bakers are forced into paying fines, let me know if there is a fund for their legal services take it all the way to the Supreme Court. If they lose, I know people that will hire them in a minute where they can keep their religious beliefs. What makes me the maddest is the gays could have gone to other bakers for their cake.
    They don’t want us to judge them, but they sure want to judge us.

  57. Oh well, when the Muslims take over the US, there won’t be any more gays left anyway. It will be hard as to who we root for.

  58. Eli Charlie Noseworthy

    MORTON 212, BEST PART OF YOU RAN DOWN YOUR OLD MANS LEG, WHAT A TOTAL JERKOFF !! GO PUT YOUR DRESS ON AND PLAY- DIRT BAG !!

  59. A disgusting first step down a very slippery slope.

    • That – is not a right you can observe under most licensing for retail operations.

      • It’s truly unfortunate that one can’t state that right up front. Usually there has to be an altercation of some sort before that right can be exercised. Ever notice how solving one problem can sometimes create another, thus is life.

  60. If they asked me to make a cake, i would add a lot of laxative to it.

  61. I think that the key point that the judge and lots of other miss is that the Constitution wasn’t built to provide rights. It was built to protect against tyranny. For instance the First Amendment was not intended to allow anyone/everyone to say whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, it was intended to be part of peaceable assembly and petition the government to accommodate civil disagreement, not, for example, to accommodate profanity. Similarly, it was intended to protect followers of a religion from tyrants who wanted to impose a different religion – exactly what the homosexuals in this case (and others) are doing. If you don’t like the baker’s religion go to a baker that shares your religion, don’t impose it on others.

  62. What happen to Freedom of Speech? Where are the rights of any one that are not Gay? Americans that owns their own business have a RIGHT to refuse their service by the Constitution.

  63. All that’s happen in this country has been allowed to happen no one should have to cater to something or any thing unless it’s his or her desire. the government has over step it’s bound all this bulling and forcing people to accept the sickness that’s running rampant in the country will one day be their undoing , since when do they think they can enforce how people feel or think it brings to mind Rahwanda

  64. Its a sad state of affairs when you can not chose your own customers. Frankly its none on the Government dam business if you want to bake a cake for a queer on not. That is 100% yours. Or it Was before we started busing our children against their parent’s will so they have to mix with the blacks. Guess what? The Monkey see, Monkey do, Republicans were right in the middle of that boondoggle.

  65. trollhunterforlife45

    Violence will be Countered and We out Number them. The guilt of Any Soldier or Marine or Airman Or Seal ,will turn in there face, to Not Use lethal Force,Against any American, but March into D.C and take the Criminals down !!

  66. Michael Dennewitz

    I used to “tolerate” faggots. One had better not even speak to me now!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*